r 

University  of  California. 

FROM    TIIK    I.111KAKY    <  >F 

I)  R.     FRANCIS     LI  E  \\  KK,  ' 

Profe-vur  of  History  nntl  Law  in  Columbia  Collojrc,  Now  York. 


THK   GIFT   OF 


MICHAEL     REESE 

Of  San  F 


1873. 


SCRIPTURAL,  ECCLESIASTICAL,  AND  HISTORICAL 


VIEW  OF  SLAVERY, 


FROM   THE 


DAYS    OF    THE    PATRIARCH    ABRAHAM,    TO    THE 
NINETEENTH   CENTURY. 


ADDRESSED   TO   THE 


EIGHT  REV.  ALOis"ZO  POTTER,  D.D., 

BISHOP  OF  THK    PROT.    KPISCOPAI.  CHURCH,    IN   THE   DIOCESE  OF   PENNSYLVANIA. 


JOHN  HENRY  HOPKINS,  D.D.,  LLD., 

BISHOP  OF  THE   DIOCKSK   OF   VERMONT. 


W.  I.  POOLEY  &  CO.,  HARPER'S  BUILDING,  FRANKLIN  SQUARE. 


'l 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1864,  by 

JOHN   HENRY   HOPKINS, 

In  the   Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern  Dis 
trict  of  New- York. 


JOHN  A.  GRAY  &  GREEN, 

PRINTERS,    STEREOTYPKRS,    AND   BINDERS, 

16  &  18  Jacob  St.,  N.  Y. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION,  narrating  the  facts  which  led  to  the  publication  of 
the  Pamphlet.  The  Letter  of  Request.  The  Answer,  .  .  3-5 

BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY  in  full.  Definition  of  Slavery.  A  phy 
sical  but  not  a  moral  evil.  Slaveholding  believed  by  its  adver 
saries  to  be  a  sin.  This  is  denied.  The  Bible  must  decide.  The 
prophecy  of  Noah.  The  case  of  Abraham.  Hagar.  The  Ten 
Commandments.  Direct  rules  laid  down  by  the  Almighty  for 
temporary  slavery  of  the  Israelites  during  six  years,  and  for 
perpetual  slavery  of  the  heathen  strangers.  Corrective  disci 
pline  authorized,  but  not  to  maim  or  kill  The  Jubilee  did  not 
extend  to  the  slaves  held  in  perpetuity,  but  only  to  the  slaves 
for  a  term  of  years,  who  were  of  the  race  of  Israel,  .  5-11 

The  coming  of  Christ  made  no  change  in  Jewish  slavery.  No  new 
principle  was  set  forth.  Love  not  inconsistent  with  slavery. 
St.  Paul  lays  down  rules  for  slavery  to  the  Ephesians,  to  the 
Colossians,  to  Timothy,  to  Titus,  and  sends  back  the  runaway, 
xOnesimus,  to  his  master.  Objections  considered.  Declaration 
of  Independence.  All  men  not  created  equal,  but  the  contrary. 
The  proposition  no  part  of  the  Federal  Constitution.  The  negro 
is  a  brother,  as  descended  from  Noah,  but  not  an  equal,  .  .  11-38 

SLAVERY  OF  CIRCUMSTANCES.  No  man  absolutely,  but  only  rela 
tively  free.  Objections  resumed.  Cruelty.  Immorality.  Lia 
bility  to  separation  of  husband  and  wife  and  children.  Poly 
gamy.  Doctrine  of  the  Church  continued  as  laid  down  by  the 
apostles.  Benefits  of  Southern  slavery  to  the  negro  race. 
Author  friendly  to  gradual  abolition  whenever  the  Southern 
States  are  willing.  Reference  to  his  former  writings  on  the 
subject.  Conclusion  of  the  "Bible  View"  with  prayer  for 
peaceful  accommodation,  .  .  . • ,  .  -  33-41 

THE  PROTEST  of  the  Bishop  and  Clergy  of  Pennsylvania,      .  42-43 


H  CONTENTS. 

PACK 

ANSWER  to  the  Protest  and  end  of  Introduction,         .        .        .        44-50 

CHAPTER  I. — Position  of  the  Author.  Friendly  to  peaceable  and 
gradual  abolition,  with  the  consent  of  the  Southern  States,  but 
opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  ultra-abolitionism.  Statement  of  the 
latter.  Contrary  to  the  Bible  the  Church,  the  Constitution, 
and  the  true  interest  of  the  colored  race.  The  Protest,  a  libel. 
This  book,  a  brotherly  admonition.  The  circumstances  which 
led  to  the  republication  of  the  pamphlet.  The  right  of  every 
citizen  to  set  forth  his  views.  The  same  right  asserted  for  the 
clergy  as  individual  citizens,  though  political  questions  must  not 
be  brought  into  the  Church  nor  her  conventions.  The  Protest 
the  result  of  political  expediency,  .  .  .  .  .  61-60 

CHAPTER  II. — Duty  of  bishops  to  contend  for  religious  truth, 
though  not  the  road  to  popularity.  The  doctrine  of  the  author 
held  by  all,  during  the  first  forty  years  of  our  national  history. 
Held  by  almost  all,  for  twenty  years  more.  Held  by  his  own 
Church  up  to  1860.  Political  expediency  considered.  Its  intro 
duction  into  the  Church  deprecated  as  full  of  danger,  .  .  61-65 

CHAPTER  III. — Arguments  of  the  anonymous  Pamphleteers.  Pro 
phecy  of  Noah.  Degraded  condition  of  the  native  Africans 
stated  from  Malte  Brun.  Bishop  Newton  in  opposition  to  the 
ultra-abolitionist,  .  .  .  .  .'.....  .  66-73 

CHAPTER  IV. — Hagar  and  Ishmael.     Cruden  on  Jewish  slavery. 

Vindication  of  the  Bible  View  of  Slavery,      .        .        ....        74-77 

CHAPTER  V. — Objections  of  the  anonymous  pamphleteers  con 
tinued.  The  Ten  Commandments.  Articles  of  the  Church  on 
the  Moral  law.  Man-stealing.  The  slave  escaped  from  his  mas 
ter.  Comparative  view  of  the  Mosaic,  the  Roman,  and  the 
Southern  laws  in  reference  to  slavery.  The  slave  a  chattel  in 
one  respect,  but  a  person  in  erery  other,  by  the  whole  three 
systems,  .  .  .  .  .r 77-85 

CHAPTER  VI. — The  code  on  slavery  set  forth  at  large,  from  the 
Institutes  of  Justinian.  Remarks.  It  was  more  severe,  on  the 
whole,  than  the  Southern  system.  Yet  it  subsisted  along  with 

civil  liberty,  for  many  ages, 85-92 

/  CHAPTER  VII. — Views  of  the  ancient  philosophers  on  slavery, 

represented  by  Aristotle, 93-98 

CHAPTER  VIII. — Statements  of  the  ancient  writers  on  slavery. 
Philo  Judaeus,  Tertullian,  Jerome,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Augustine, 
St.  Basil 99-104 


CONTENTS. 


Ill 


CHAPTER  IX. — The  old  fathers  continued.  St.  Chrysostom,  Gre 
gory  the  Great.  Form  of  deed  by  which  he  gave  a  slave  to  the 
Bishop  of  Porto.  Prosper  of  Aquitaine.  Isidore  of  Seville, .  105-109 

CHAPTER  X. — The  Canons  of  the  Apostles.  The  Clementine  Con 
stitutions.  The  Councils  of  Gangra,  of  Agde,  of  Orleans,  of 
Epone,  of  Ma£on,  of  Toledo,  of  Narbonne,  of  Berghamstead,  of 
Aix-la-Chapelle,  the  Capitulary  of  the  Emperor  Louis,  the 
Council  of  Worms,  the  Council  of  London.  Mistake  of  the 
Bishop  of  Oxford  rectified, l  .  .  110-115 

CHAPTER  XI. — Examples  of  slaveholding  in  the  primitive  Church, 
from  the  eccclesiastical  historian,  Fleury.  St.  Gregory.  St. 
Perpetuus.  Alcuin.  Council  of  Soissons.  Pope  Benedict,  .  115-117 

CHAPTER  XII. — Statements  of  Bingham.  The  Apostolic  Canons. 

The  Imperial  laws.  Theodosian  Code,  .  .  .  .  .  118-119 

CHAPTER  XIII. — The  Divines  and  Commentators  since  the  Re 
formation.  Melancthon.  Calvin.  Pool's  Synopsis,  .  .  120-122 

CHAPTER  XIV. — Commentators.     Pool's  Synopsis,      '.  ...  ".         .     123-126 

CHAPTER  XV. — The  Commentary  of  Patrick,  Lowth,  and  Whitby, 

sustaining  the  Bible  View  of  Slavery,  .  .  ...  127-135 

CHAPTER  XVI. — The  Commentary  of  Rev.  Matthew  Henry  in  per 
fect  agreement  with  apostolic  doctrine  on  slavery,  .  .  .  136-141 

CHAPTER  XVII.— The  Commentary  of  Rev.  Thomas  Scott.  Be 
longs  to  the  nineteenth  century.  Shows,  occasionally,  the  influ 
ence  of  ultra-abolition  novelty,  but  sound  on  the  whole.  His 
mistake  about  the  law  of  l(Jve  being  inconsistent  with  slavery 
considered,  .  V~  .  .  .  '.  .-'.'.  '/  .  •.  .  142-152 

CHAPTER  XVIII. — The  commentary  of  Rev.  Adam  Clarke.  His 
occasional  outbursts  against  slavery.  Yet  his  doctrines  as  a 
commentator  correct  and  faithful,  .  .  /  ,  .  ,.  .  ,  .  153-159 

CHAPTER  XIX. — The  Comprehensive  Commentary.  Dr.  Jenks. 

In  the  main  a  repetition  of  Henry  and  Scott,  .  »  ...  160-163 

CHAPTER. XX.- — Dr.  Gill's  Exposition  set  forth  at  large  on  slavery. 

Judicious  and  learned  Commentator, 164-171 

CHAPTER  XXI. — Dr.  Doddridge's  Paraphrase.  Hammond's  Para 
phrase.  Locke  on  the  Epistles.  D'Oyly  and  Mant's  Commen 
tary.  Melchizedek.  Argument  proving  that  the  main  por 
tion  of  Canaan's  posterity  have  always  been,  and  still  are  among 
the  native  Africans,  fulfilling  the  prophecy  of  Noah.  Ultimately, 


CONTENTS. 


at  the  time  appointed  by  divine  Providence,  they  will  be  freed 
from  slavery.  But  the  prophecy  must  have  its  course  till  then, 

CHAPTER  XXII. — Commentary  of  D'Oyly  and  Mant  continued. 
The  color  of  the  human  races.  Buffon.  Shaw.  The  Jubilee. 
Bishop  Davenant  on  slavery,  set  forth  at  large, 

CHAPTER  XXIII. — Dr.  Jortin's  statement  about  the  law  of  nature, 
examined.  Dominion  and  subjection.  No  government  possible 
without  them.  The  Federal  Constitution  is  the  supreme  law  in 
earthly  things,  to  the  American  citizen.  The  oath  of  allegiance. 
Christianity  enforces  its  authority.  No  conflict  between  the 
law  of  God  and  the  law  of  the  Constitution  with  respect  to 
slavery,  as  both  unite  in  its  sanction,  .  .  . .  •  » 

CHAPTER  XXIV. — The  commentator,  Macknight,  on  slavery, 

CHAPTER  XXV. — The  Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  the 
Greek  Testament  by  Rev.  Henry  Alford.  The  New  Testament 
in  the  original  Greek,  with  notes,  by  the  Rev.  Chr.  Words 
worth,  D.D.,  ...  

CHAPTER  XXVI. — Perversion  of  the  prophets  exposed, 

CHAPTER  XXVII.— Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  from  the 
works  of  Bishop  England.  Apostolic  Letters  of  the  Popes. 
Theologians.  Oriental  Churches  and  Church  of  Russia,  . 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. — Bishop  England  on  marriage  of  slaves, 

CHAPTER  XXIX. — Polygamy  not  authorized  by  any  divine  law. 
Prohibited  by  St.  Paul  to  the  clergy.  The  Apostolic  Canons. 
Council  of  Nice  expressly  extending  the  prohibition  to  the 
laity.  St.  Augustine.  St.  Basil.  General  Argument.  The 
whole  Church  unanimous  against  Polygamy,  .  ..... 

CHAPTER  XXX. — Man-stealing.  The  Southern  States  had  nothing 
to  do  with  it.  Absurdity  of  the  accusation  demonstrated.  The 
title  of  the  Southern  masters  shown  to  be  as  good  as  the  title 
of  the  North  to  their  lands  taken  from  the  Indians, . 

CHAPTER  XXXI. — The  Golden  Rule.  Limitations  to  its  applica 
tion  universally  admitted.  Illustrations.  The  Southern  mas 
ters  have  acted  upon  it  largely  in  the  emancipation  of  their 
slaves, 

CHAPTER  XXXII. — Slavery  of  freemen.  Not  the  subject  in  con 
troversy.  Modes  of  abolition, 

CHAPTER  XXXIII — St.  Domingo,  from  the  work  of  the  historian, 
Alison, 


PACK 

172-187 
188-194 


195-204 
205-210 


211-215 
216-220 


22K225 

226-228 


229-233 
234-239 

240-243 
244-248 
249-252 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  XXXIV.— The  Slave-trade.  Views  of  Mr.  Wilberforce 
examined,  and  shown  to  be  in  agreement  with  those  of  the 
Author,.  .  ......  .  Sjpfc  i  v  v*  .  .  .  253-257 

CHAPTER  XXXV.— Results  of  the  British  Act  of  Emancipation, 
from  the  work  of  the  historian  Alison.  His  opinion  on  the 
advantages  of  slavery,  .  •»  fc-  4  5  '  .  i  .  258-261 

CHAPTER  XXXVI.— The  historian  Hume.     Blackstone.     Villen- 

age  in  England.     Died  out  by  degrees,    «        *   „-!•-*        .     262-2G4 

CHAPTER  XXXVII.— The  historian  Gibbon  on  Roman  slavery. 

Observations, 265-268 

CHAPTER  XXXVIII.— The  historian  Robertson.  Slavery  in  Eng 
land.  The  Church  favorable  to  it.  Died  out  by  degrees.  Ob 
servations,  .  ..»'..,  ,  .  .  ..  .  .  269—272 

CHAPTER  XXXIX. — The  historian  Motley.  The  Church  favorable 
to  slavery.  Seven  thousand  two  hundred  Turks  reduced  to 
slavery  among  Christians  after  the  battle  of  Lepanto,  in  the 
sixteenth  century.  Slavery  died  out  in  Europe  through  the 
results  of  commercial  changes.  Observations,  .  .  .  273-275 

CHAPTER  XL. — Case  of  the  negro  Somerset.     Argument  of  Har- 

grave  from  the  State  Trials.     Observations,     .         .  -     .         .     276-280 

CHAPTER  XLI. — Treaty  of  Utrecht.  Queen  Anne  a  Partner  with 
the  English- African  Company  in  slave-trade.  The  Church  of 
England  in  contrast  with  ultra-abolitionism,  .  ."  .'  .  281-283 

CHAPTER  XLII. — Mournful  debasement  of  the  English  poor,  from 

the  work  of  Joseph  Kay,  Esq., 284-300 

CHAPTER  XLIII. — Treatment  of  the  slaves.  Corporal  correction. 
Sanctioned  by  the  divine  law  for  Israel.  The  system  laid  down 
by  the  Almighty  was  preeminent  in  mercy  and  compassion,  .  301-307 

CHAPTER  XLIV.— Vindication  of  corporal  punishment  as  more 
safe,  merciful,  and  effectual  than  imprisonment.  Mrs.  Kemble's 
book.  Contrast  between  her  statements  on  the  condition  of 
the  slaves,  and  Mr.  Kay's  statements  concerning  the  English 
poor.  Slavery  to  be  abolished,  not  by  violent  assaults,  but  by 
the  operation  of  divine  Providence,  .  .  .  ,  .  308-317 
CHAPTER  XLV. — Treatment  of  the  slaves,  continued.  Testimony 
of  the  Southern  clergy.  Bryan  Tyson,  Esq.  Marriages.  No 
pauperism.  Regrets  of  emancipated  negroes,  .  .  .  318-32E 
CHAPTER  XL VI. — Statements  of  Rev.  Dr.  Cummins.  Opinions  of 
Washington,  Jefferson,  etc.  Mrs.  Stowe.  Abuses  admitted 


VI  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

and  condemned.  Illustration,  showing  that  these  are  no  fair 
grounds  of  argument  against  the  institution.  The  question  of 
compensation  for  slave  labor  considered,  ....  324-332 

CHAPTER  XLVII.— Theodore  Parker.  Mr.  Emerson.  Infidelity 
associated  with  ultra-abolitionism.  Mr.  Parker's  anticipation  of 
civil  war.  His  principles  upon  the  right  of  the  slaves  to  kill 
their  masters,  and  the  duty  of  the  freemen  to  help  them,  .  333-343 

CHAPTER  XLVIII. — The  Protest.  The  precepts  of  the  Apostle. 

Admonition.  Summary.  Conclusion,  .  .  ...  .  344-353 


CONTENTS  OF  THE  APPENDIX. 

NOTE  1.  Meaning  of  the  Fourth  and  Tenth  Commandments  proved  from 

the  Septuagint,  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  other  versions. 
NOTE  2.  Observations  on  our  English  version. 
NOTE  3.  The  original  text  of  the  Roman  Civil  Law  on  slavery 
NOTES  4-13.  The  same. 
NOTE  14.  Philo  Judaeus.     Latin  version. 
NOTE  15.  The  same. 
NOTE  16.  Tertullian. 
NOTES  17,  18,  and  19.  St.  Jerome. 
NOTES  20  and  21.  Ancient  author,  supposed  formerly  to  be  Ambrose  of 

Milan. 

NOTES  22-26.  St.  Augustine. 
NOTES  27-29.  St.  Basil.     Latin  version. 
NOTE  30.  St.  Chrysostom.     Latin  version. 
NOTE  31.  Prosper  of  Aquitaine. 
NOTES  32-34.  Gregory  the  Great. 
NOTE  35.  Isidore  of  Seville. 
NOTE  36.  Apostolic  Canons. 

NOTE  37.  The  Clementine  Constitutions.     Latin  version. 
NOTE  38.  Council  of  Gangra. 
NOTE  39.  Council  of  Agde. 
NOTE  40.  Council  of  Orleans,  A.D.  511. 
NOTE  41.  Council  of  Epone. 
NOTE  42.  Another  Council  of  Orleans,  A.D.  541. 
NOTE  43.  Another  Council  of  Orleans,  A.D.  549. 
NOTE  44.  Council  of  Ma9on. 


CONTENTS.  vii 

NOTE  45.  Council  of  Toledo. 

NOTE  46.  Council  of  Narbonne. 

NOTE  47.  Council  of  Berghamstead. 

NOTE  48.  Council  of  Aix-la-Chapelle. 

NOTE  49.  Capitulary  of  Emperor  Louis. 

NOTES  50  and  61.  Council  of  Worms. 

NOTE  52.  Council  of  London.     Mistake  of  Bishop  of  Oxford. 

NOTE  53.  Letter  of  Archbishop  Anselm. 

NOTE  54.  Fleury,  the  ecclesiastical  historian.     St.  Gregory. 

NOTE  55.  Ib.     St.  Perpetuus. 

NOTE  56.  Ib.    Alcuin. 

NOTE  57.  Ib.     Council  of  Soissons. 

NOTE  58.  Ib.     Pope  Benedict. 

NOTE  59.  Melancthon. 

NOTES  60,  61,  and  62.  Calvin. 

NOTES  63,  64,  and  65.  Pool's  Synopsis. 

NOTES  66,  67,  68,  69,  70,  71,  72,  and  73.  Pool's  Synopsis. 

NOTE  74.  Apostolic  Canons. 

NOTE  75.  Council  of  Nice. 

NOTE  76.  St.  Augustin. 

NOTES  77  and  78.  S.  Basil. 

NOTE  79.  African  barbarism. 


E  BEAT  A. 


Page  59. — (Sixteen  lines  from  the  top,)  instead  of  "Archbishop  of  Exeter," 
read  Bishop  of  Exeter. 

Page  79. — (Nine  lines  from  the  bottom,)  instead  of  "  rights  "  read  rites. 

Page  100. — (Ten  lines  from  the  bottom,)  instead  of  "Colosiaus"  read 
Colossians. 

Page  117. — (Four  lines  from  the  bottom,)  instead  of  "and  "  read  nor. 

Page  123. — (Fourteen  lines  from  the  top,)  instead  of  "McKuight"  read 
Macknight. 

Page  170. — (Seventeen  lines  from  the  top,)  instead  of  "  way"  read  away. 

Page  173. — (Sixteen  lines  from  the  bottom,)  instead  of  "There"  read 
These. 

Page  224. — (Five  lines  from  the  top,)  instead  of  "  perpetuate  "  read  per 
petrate. 

Page  229. — (Nine  lines  from  the  top,)  instead  of  "antagonist"  read  an 
tagonists. 

Page  230. — (Three  lines  from  the  bottom,)  instead  of  "  74"  read  77. 

Page  230. — (Bottom  line,)  instead  of  "  75"  read  78. 


INTRODUCTION  FOR  THE  GENERAL  READER. 


IN  the  month  of  December,  1 860, 1  was  requested  formally, 
by  several  gentlemen  of  New- York,  to  state  in  writing  my 
opinion  of  the  Biblical  argument  on  the  subject  of  negro 
slavery  in  the  Southern  States,  and  also  on  the  constitutional 
position  of  the  contending  parties.  I  considered  it  my  duty 
to  comply  with  that  request,  and  the  pamphlet  was  publish 
ed  at  their  expense  in  the  following  month  of  January.  No 
compensation,  pecuniary  or  otherwise,  was  offered  or  ex 
pected  for  my  labor.  It  was  asked  and  given  purely  as  a 
service  to  what  I  deemed  to  be  the  truth,  at  a  time  when 
the  secession  of  the  Southern  States  had  invested  that  truth 
with  the  highest  importance  to  the  peace  and  safety  of  our 
country. 

Some  gentlemen  of  Philadelphia,  having  read  this  pam 
phlet,  addressed  a  similar  request  to  me  on  the  fifteenth  of 
April,  1863,  with  reference  to  the  topic  of  slavery,  and  I  re 
plied  by  consenting -to  the  republication  of  the  same  Biblical 
argument  on  that  subject,  including  the  popular  objections 
commonly  urged  against  it.  As  in  the  former  case,  so  it 
was  in  this — that  no  pecuniary  or  other  inducement  of  a 
personal  nature  was  contemplated.  I  did  not  know,  and 
cared  not  to  inquire  into  the  political  standing  of  those  gen 
tlemen.  The  question,  in  my  mind,  was  above  all  party  con 
siderations,  because  it  involved  the  authority  of  the  Scrip 
tures,  the  consistency  of  the  Church,  and  the  morality  of  the 
American  Constitution.  I  was  sufficiently  acquainted  with 
the  subscribers  of  the  letter  to  recognize  them  as  Episcopa- 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

lians  of  high  character,  who  had  a  right  to  know  the  senti 
ments  of  every  bishop  in  the  Church,  in  answer  to  any  re 
spectful  application.  And  I  should  have  deemed  myself  not 
only  unworthy  of  my  office,  but  unworthy  of  the  name  of 
a  Christian  freeman,  if  I  could  have  shrunk  from  avowing 
my  convictions  of  the  truth,  through  the  love  of  popular 
praise  or  the  fear  of  popular  censure. 

The  letter  of  request,  together  with  my  reply,  is  here  re 
corded,  in  order  that  my  readers  may  have  the  whole  case 
fully  and  fairly  before  them. 


THE    LETTER    OF    REQUEST. 

PHILADELPHIA,  April  15,  1863. 

^f 

RIGHT  REVEREND  SIR  :  Your  views  on  the  Scriptural  as 
pect  of  Slavery,  contained  in  a  letter  addressed  by  you  to 
some  gentlemen  in  ISTew-York,  shortly  before  the  breaking 
out  of  the  war,  has  come  to  our  notice,  and  been  perused 
with  much  satisfaction  and  profit. 

"We  believe  that  false  teachings  on  this  subject  have  had 
a  great  deal  to  do  with  bringing  on  the  unhappy  strife  be 
tween  two  sections  of  our  common  country,  and  that  a  la 
mentable  degree  of  ignorance  prevails  in  regard  to  it.  It  is 
of  the  deepest  importance  to  the  public  welfare  that  a  sound 
public  opinion  should  exist  on  this  topic.  Believing  that 
the  communication  of  your  views  as  a  Christian  Bishop  on 
the  Scriptural  aspect  of  Slavery  may  contribute  to  this  de 
sirable  result,  we  respectfully  venture  to  beg  that  you  will 
favor  us  with  them,  and  permit  us  to  make  them  public. 
We  are  with  great  respect  your  obedient  servants, 

G.  M.  WHARTON,  SAMUEL  JACKSON,  M.D., 

A.  BROWNING,  CHAS.  J.  BIDDLE, 

JOHN  STOCKTON  LITTELL,     P.  McCALL. 
To  the  Rt.  Rev.  JOHN  HENRY  HOPKINS,  Burlington,  Vt. 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY.  5 

THE    ANSWER. 

BUKLINGTON,  YT.,  May  2,  1863. 

MY  DEAK  SIRS  :  The  pamphlet  published  in  January,  1861, 
to  which  you  have  so  kindly  referred,  is  at  your  service,  in 
its  original  form;  as  I  have  not -found,  in  the  numerous  an 
swers  which  it  has  drawn  forth,  any  reason  for  changing  my 
opinion.  On  the  contrary,  those  answers  have  only  strength 
ened  my  conviction  as  to  the  sanction  which  the  Scriptures 
give  to  the  principle  of  negro  slavery,  so  long  as  it  is  .ad 
ministered  in  accordance  with  the  precepts  laid  down  by  the 
Apostles.  Such  was  the  universal  doctrine"  of  .Christian 
ministers,  Christian  lawyers,  and  Christian  statesmen  one 
hundred  years  ago,  with  a  few  exceptions  which  only  proved 
the  rule.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  I  firmly 
believe,  made  no  concessions  on  the  subject  which  were  not 
warranted  by  the  Bible.  And  therefore,  while  I  should  re 
joice  in  the  adoption  of  any  plan  of  gradual  abolition  which 
could  be  accepted  peacefully  by  general  consent,  I  can  not 
see  that  we  have  any  right  to  interfere  with  the  domestic 
institutions  of  the  South,  either  by  the  law  or  by  the  Gos 
pel.  With  this  brief  introduction,  I  proceed  to  the  very 
serious  question  which  your  friendly  application  has  submit 
ted  for  discussion. 

Your  faithful  servant  in  Christ, 

JOHN  H.  HOPKINS, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Vermont. 


BIBLE  VIEW   OF   SLAYEEY. 

THE  word  "  slave  "  occurs  but  twice  in  our  English  Bible, 
but  the  term  "  servant,"  commonly  employed  by  our  trans 
lators,  has  the  meaning  of  slave  in  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Greek  originals,  as  a  general  rule,  where  it  stands  alone. 
We  read,  however,  in  many  places,  of  "hired  servants," 


6  BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAYERY. 

and  of  "bondmen  and  bondmaids."  The  first  were  not 
slaves,  but  the  others  were ;  the  distinction  being  precisely 
'the  same  which  exists  in  our  own  day.  Slavery,  therefore, 
may  be  defined  as  servitude  for  life,  descending  to  the  off 
spring.  And  this  kind  of  bondage  appears  to  have  existed 
as  an  established  institution  in  all  the  ages  of  our  world,  by 
the  universal  evidence  of  history,  whether  sacred  or  profane. 

Thus  understood,  I  shall  not  oppose  the  prevalent  idea 
that  slavery  is  an  evil  in  itself.  \  A  physical  evil  it  may  be, 
but  this  does  not  satisfy  the  judgment  of  its  more  zealous 
adversaries,  since  they  contend  that  it  is  a  moral  evil — a 
positive  sin  to  hold  a  human  being  in  bondage,  under  any 
circumstances  whatever,  unless  as  a  punishment  inflicted  on 
crimes,  for  the  safety  of  the  community. 

Here,  therefore,  lies  the  true  aspect  of  the  controversy, 
and  it  is  evident  that  it  can  only  be  settled  by  the  Bible. 
For  every  Christian  is  bound  to  assent  to  the  rule  of  the 
inspired  Apostle,  that  "  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law," 
namely,  the  law  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures  by  the  authority 
of  God — the  supreme  "  Lawgiver,  who  is  able  to  save  and 
to  destroy."  From  his  Word  there  can  be  no  appeal.  No 
rebellion  can  be  so  atrocious  in  his  sight  as  that  which  dares 
to  rise  against  his  government.  No  blasphemy  can  be  more 
unpardonable  than  that  which  imputes  sin  or  moral  evil  to 
the  decrees  of  the  eternal  Judge,  who  is  alone  perfect  in 
wisdom,  in  knowledge,  and  in  love. 

With  entire  correctness,  therefore,  your  letter  refers  the 
question  to  the  only  infallible  criterion — the  Word  of  God. 
If  it  were  a  matter  to  be  determined  by  my  personal  sym 
pathies,  tastes,  or  feelings,  I  should  be  as  ready  as  any  man 
to  condemn  the  institution  of  slavery ;  for  all  my  prejudices  of 
education,  habit,  and  social  position  stand  entirely  opposed  to 
it.  But  as  a  Christian,  I  am  solemnly  warned  not  to  be  "  wise 
in  my  own  conceit,"  and  not  to  "lean  to  my  own  under 
standing."  As  a  Christian,  I  am  compelled  to  submit  my 


BIBLE   VIEW  OF  SLAVERY.  7 

weak  and  erring  intellect  to  the  authority  of  the  Almighty. 
For  then  only  can  I  be  safe  in  my  conclusions,  when  I  know 
that  they  are  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  Him,  before 
whose  tribunal  I  must  render  a  strict  account  in  the  last 
great  day. 

I  proceed,  accordingly,  to  the  evidence  of  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  which,  long  ago,  produced  complete  conviction 
in  my  own  mind,  and  must,  as  I  regard  it,  be  equally  con 
clusive  to  every  candid  and  sincere  inquirer.  When  the 
array  of  positive  proof  is  exhibited,  I  shall  consider  the 
objections,  and  examine  their  validity  with  all  the  fairness 
in  my  power. 

The  first  appearance  of  slavery  in  the  Bible  is  the  won- 
derful  prediction  of  the  patriarch  Noah :  "  Cursed  be  Canaan, 
a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  to  his  brethren.  Blessed 
be  the  Lord  God  of  Shem,  and  Canaan  shall  be  his  servant. 
God  shall  enlarge  Japheth,  and  he  shall  dwell  in  the  tents 
of  Shem,  and  Canaan  shall  be  his  servant^  (Gen.  9  :  25.) 

The  heartless  irreverence  which  Mam,  the  father  of 
Canaan,  displayed  toward  his  eminent  parent,  whose  piety 
had  just  saved  him  from  the  deluge,  presented  the  imme 
diate  occasion  for  this  remarkable  prophecy  ;  but  the  actual 
fulfilment  was  reserved  for  his  posterity,  after  they  had 
lost  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  become  utterly  polluted  by 
the  abominations  of  heathen  idolatry.  The  Almighty,  foresee 
ing  this  total  degradation  of  the  race,  ordained  them  to  servi 
tude  or  slavery  under  the  descendants  of  Shem  and  Japheth, 
doubtless  because  he  judged  it  to  be  their  fittest  condition. 
And  all  history  proves  how  accurately  the  prediction  has 
been  accomplished,  even  to  the  present  day. 

We  come,  next  -to  tlie  proof  that  slavery  was  sanctioned 
by  the  Deity  In  the  case  of  Abraham,  whose  three  hundred 
and  eighteen  bond-servants,  born  in  his  own  house,  (Gen. 
14  : 14,)  are  mentioned  along  with  those  who  were  bought 
with  his  money,  as  proper  subjects  for  circumcision.  (Gen. 


8  BIBLE  VIEW   OF  SLAVERY. 

17  :  12.)  His  wife  Sarah  had  also  an  Egyptian  slave,  named 
Hagar,  who  fled  from  her  severity.  And  "  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  "  commanded  the  fugitive  to  return  to  her  mistress  and 
submit  herself.  (Gen.  16  :  9.)  If  the  philanthropists  of  our 
age,  who  profess  to  believe  the  Bible,  had  been  willing  to 
take  the  counsel  of  that  angel  for  their  guide,  it  would  have 
preserved  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  Union. 

The  third  proof  that  slavery  was  authorized  by  the  Al 
mighty  occurs  in  the  last  of  the  Ten  Commandments,  deliv 
ered  from  Mount  Sinai,  and  universally  acknowledged  by 
.  Jews  and  Christians  as  THE  MORAL  LAW  :  "  Thou  shalt  not 
covet  thy  neighbor's  house,  thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neigh 
bor's  wife,  nor  his  man-servant,  nor  his  maid-servant,  nor 
his  ox,  nor  his  ass,  nor  any  thing  that  is  thy  neighbor's." 
(Exod.  20:  17.)     Here  it  is  evident  that  the  principle  of 
property — "  any  thing  that  is  thy  neighbor's  " — runs  through 
the  whole.    I  am  quite  aware,  indeed,  of  the  prejudice  which 
many  good  people  entertain  against  the  idea  of  property  in 
a  human  being,  and  shall  consider  it,  in  due  time,  amongst 
the  objections.     I  am  equally  aware  that  the  wives  of  our 
day  may  take  umbrage  at  the  law  which  places  them  in  the 
same  sentence  with  the  slave,  and  even  with  the  house  and 
the  cattle.     But  the  truth  is  none  the  less  certain.     The 
husband  has  a  real  property  in  the  wife,  because  she  is 
bound,  for  life,  to  serve  and  to  obey  him.     The  wife  has  a 
real  property  in  her  husband,  because  he  is  bound,  for  life, 
to  cherish  and  maintain  her.     The  character  of  property  is 
doubtless  modified  by  its  design.     But  whatever,  whether 
person  or  thing,  the  law  appropriates  to  an  individual,  be 
comes  of  necessity  his  property. 

The  fourth  proof,  however,  is  yet  more  express,  as  it  is  de 
rived  from  the  direct  rule  established  by  the  wisdom  of  God 
for  his  chosen  people,  Israel,  on  the  very  point  in  question, 
viz. : 

"  If  thou  buy  a  Hebrew  servant,  six  years  shall  he  serve, 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY.  9 

and  in  the  seventh  year  he  shall  go  out  free  for  nothing.  If 
he  came  in  by  himself,  he  shall  go  out  by  himself.  If  he 
were  married,  then  his  wife  shall  go  out  with  him.  If  his 
master  have  given  him  a  wife,  and  she  have  borne  him  sons 
or  daughters,  the  wife  and  the  children  shall  be  her  master's, 
and  he  shall  go  out  by  himself.'"  (Exod.  21 :  2-4.)  Here  we 
see  that  the  separation  of  husband  and  wife  is  positively  di 
rected  by  the  divine  command,  in  order  to  secure  the  pro 
perty  of  the  master  in  his  bond-maid  and  her  offspring.  But 
the  husband  had  an  alternative,  if  he  preferred  slavery  to 
separation.  For  thus  the  law  of  God  proceeds :  "  If  the 
servant  shall  plainly  say,  I  love  my  master,  my  wife,  and  my 
children  ;  I  will  not  go  out  free ;  then  his  master  shall  bring 
him  unto  the  judges  ;  he  shall  also  bring  him  to  the  door  or 
unto  the  door  post;  and  his  master  shall  bore  his  ear 
through  with  an  awl,  and  he  shall  serve  him  forever"  (Exod. 
21:5,  6.)  With  this  law  before  his  eyes,  what  Christian 
can  believe  that  the  Almighty  attached  immorality  or  sin  to 
the  condition  of  slavery  ? 

The  treatment  of  slaves,  especially  as  it  regarded  the  de 
gree  of  correction  which  the  master  might  administer,  occurs 
in  the  same  chapter,  as  follows :  "  If  a  man  smite  his  servant 
or  his  maid  with  a  rod,  and  he  die  under  his  hand,  he  shall 
be  surely  punished.  Notwithstanding  if  he  continue  a  day 
or  two,  he  shall  not  be  punished  ;  for  he  is  his  money." 
(Exod.  21 :  20,  21.)  And  again  :  "  If  a  man  smite  the  eye  of 
his  servant  or  the  eye  of  his  maid,  that  it  perish,  he  shall  let 
him  go  free  for  his  eye's  sake.  And  if  he  smite  out  his 
man-servant's  tooth,  or  his  maid-servant's  tooth,  he  shall  let 
him  go  free  for  his  tooth's  sake."  (Exod.  21 : 26,  27.) 
Here  we  see  that  the  master  was  authorized  to  use  corporal 
correction  toward  his  slaves,  within  certain  limits.  When 
immediate  death  ensued,  he  was  to  be  punished  as  the  judges 
might  determine.  But  for  all  that  came  short  of  this,  the 
loss  of  his  property  was  held  to  be  a  sufficient  penalty. 
1* 


10  BIBLE   VIEW  OF   SLAVEKY. 

The  next  evidence  furnished  by  the  divine  law  appears  in 
the  peculiar  and  admirable  appointment  of  the  Jubilee. 
"  Ye  shall  hallow  the  fiftieth  year,  and  proclaim  liberty 
throughout  all  the  land  to  all  the  inhabitants  thereof:  it 
shall  be  a  Jubilee  unto  you,  and  ye  shall  return  every  man 
unto  his  possession,  and  ye  shall  return  every  man  to  his 
family"  (Lev.  25:10.)  This  enactment.,  however,  did 
not  affect  the  slaves,  because  it  only  extended  to  the  Israel 
ites  who  had  "  a  possession  and  a  family,"  according  to  the 
original  distribution  of  the  land  among  the  tribes.  The  dis 
tinction  is  plainly  set  forth  in  the  same  chapter,  viz. : 

"  If  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by  thee  be  waxen  poor, 
and  be  sold  unto  thee,  thou  shalt  not  compel  him  to  serve 
as  a  bond  servant,  but  as  a  hired  servant  and  as  a  sojourner 
he  shall  be  with  thee,  and  shall  serve  thee  unto  the  year  of 
Jubilee,  and  then  shall  he  depart  from  thee,  both  he  and  his 
children  with  him,  and  shall  return  unto  his  own  family, 
and  unto  the  possession  of  his  fathers  shall  he  return.  For 
they  are  my  servants  which  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  they  shall  not  be  sold  as  bondmen.  Both  thy 
bondmen  and  bondmaids,  which  thou  shalt  have,  shall  be  of 
the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you  •  of  them  shall  ye  buy 
bondmen  and  bondmaids.  Moreover,  of  the  children  of  the 
strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy, 
and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you,  which  they  begat  in 
your  land,  and  they  shall  be  your  possession.  And  ye  shall 
take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after  you,  to 
inherit  them  for  a  possession  ;  THEY  SHALL  BE  YOUR  BOND 
MEN  FOREVER  ;  but  over  your  brethren,  the  children  of 
Israel,  ye  shall  not  rule  one  over  another  with  rigor.  For 
unto  me  the  children  of  Israel  are  servants ;  they  are  my 
servants  whom  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt :  I 
am  the  Lord  your  God."  (Lev.  39  :  40-46,  with  v.  55.) 

The  distinction  here  made,  between  the  temporary  servi 
tude  of  the  Israelite  and  the  perpetual  bondage  of  the 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY.  11 

heathen  race,  is  too  plain  for  controversy.  And  this  ex 
press  and  positive  law  furnishes  the  true  meaning  of  another 
passage  which  the  ultra-abolitionist  is  very  fond  of  repeat 
ing  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  servant 
which  is  escaped  from  his  master  unto  thee :  he  shall  dwell 
with  thee,  even  among  you,  in  that  place  which  he  shall 
choose,  in  one  of  thy  gates  where  it  liketh  him  best :  thou 
shalt  not  oppress  him."  (Deut.  23  : 15, 16.)  This  evidently 
must  be  referred  to  the  case  of  a  slave  who  had  escaped 
from  a,  foreign  heathen  master,  and  can  not,  with  any  sound 
reason,  be  applied  to  the  slaves  of  the  Israelites  themselves. 
For  it  is  manifest  that  if  it  were  so  applied,  it  would  nullify 
the  other  enactments  of  the  divine  Lawgiver,  and  it  would 
have  been  an  absurdity  to  tell  the  people  that  they  should 
"  buy  bondmen  and  bondmaids  of  the  heathen  and  the 
stranger,  to  be  their  possession  and  the  inheritance  of 
their  children  forever,"  while,  nevertheless,  the  slaves 
should  be  at  liberty  to  run  away  and  become  freemen 
when  they  pleased.  It  is  the  well-known  maxim,  in  the 
interpretation  of  all  laws,  that  each  sentence  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  give  a  consistent  meaning  to  the  whole. 
And  assuredly,  if  we  are  bound  to  follow  this  rule  in  the 
legislation  of  earth,  we  can  not  be  less  bound  to  follow  it 
in  the  legislation  of  the  Almighty.  The  meaning  that  I 
have  adopted  is  the  only  one  which  agrees  with  the  estab 
lished  principle  of  legal  construction,  and  it  has  invariably 
been  sanctioned  by  the  doctors  of  the  Jewish  law,  and 
every  respectable  Christian  commentator. 

Such,  then,  is  the  institution  of  slavery,  laid  down  by 
the  Lord  God  of  Israel  for  his  chosen  people,  and  contin 
ued  for  fifteen  centuries,  until  the  new  dispensation  of  the 
Gospel.  What  change  did  this  produce  ?  I  grant,  of 
course,  that  we,  as  Christians,  are  bound  by  the  precepts 
and  example  of  the  Saviour  and  his  apostles.  Let  us 
now,  therefore,  proceed  to  the  all-important  inquiry,  whether 


12  BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY. 

we  are  authorized  by  these  to  presume  that  the  Mosaic 
system  was  done  away. 

First,  then,  we  ask  what  the  divine  Redeemer  said  in 
reference  to  slavery.  And  the  answer  is  perfectly  unde 
niable  I  HE  DID  NOT  ALLUDE  TO  IT  AT  ALL.  Not  One  WOl'd 

of  censure  upon  the  subject  is  recorded  by  the  Evangel 
ists  who  gave  His  life  and  doctrines  to  the  world.  Yet 
slavery  was  in  full  existence  at  the  time,  throughout  Judea ; 
and  the  Roman  empire,  according  to  the  historian  Gibbon, 
contained  sixty  millions  of  slaves,  on  the  lowest  probable 
computation !  How  prosperous  and  united  would  our  glo 
rious  republic  be  at  this  hour,  if  the  eloquent  and  pertina 
cious  declaimers  against  slavery  had  been  willing  to  follow 
their  Saviour's  example ! 

But  did  not  our  Lord  substantially  repeal  the  old  law, 
by  the  mere  fact  that  he  established  a  new  dispensation  ? 
Certainly  not,  unless  they  were  incompatible.  And  that 
he  did  not  consider  them  incompatible  is  clearly  proved 
by  his  own  express  declaration.  "  Think  not,"  saith  he, 
"  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets.  I 
am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil."  (Matt.  5:17.)  On 
that  point,  therefore,  this  single  passage  is  perfectly  con 
clusive. 

It  is  said  by  some,  however,  that  the  great  principle  of 
the  Gospel,  love  to  God  and  love  to  man,  necessarily  involv 
ed  the  condemnation  of  slavery.  Yet  how  should  it  have 
any  such  result,  when  we  remember  that  this  was  no  new 
principle,  but,  on  the  contrary,  was  laid  down  by  the  Deity 
to  his  own  chosen  people,  and  was  quoted  from  the  Old 
Testament  by  the  Saviour  himself  ?  And  why  should  slavery 
be  thought  inconsistent  with  it  ?  In  the  relation  of  master 
and  slave,  we  are  assured  by  our  Southern  brethren  that 
there  is  incomparably  more  mutual  love  than  can  ever  be 
found  between  the  employer  and  the  hireling.  And  I  can 
readily  believe  it,  for  the  very  reason  that  it  is  a  relation  for 


BIBLE  VIEW   OF  SLAVERY.  13 

. 

life ;  and  the  parties,  when  rightly  disposed,  must  therefore 
frel  a  far  stronger  and  deeper  interest  in  each  other. 

The  next  evidence,  which  proves  that  the  Mosaic  law  was 
not  held  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  Gospel,  occurs  in  the 
statement  of  the  apostles  to  St.  Paul,  made  some  twenty 
years,  at  least,  after  the  establishment  of  the  first  Christian 
church  in  Jerusalem.  "  Thou  seest,  brother,"  said  they, 
"  how  many  thousands  of  Jews  there  are  who  believe,  and 
they  are  all  zealous  of  the  law"  (Acts  21  :  20.)  How  could 
this  have  been  possible,  if  the  law  was  supposed  to  be  abol 
ished  by  the  new  dispensation  ? 

But  the  precepts  and  the  conduct  of  St.  Paul  himself,  the 
great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  are  all-sufficient,  because  he 
meets  the  very  point,  and  settles  the  whole  question.  Thus 
he  saith  to  the  Ephesians  :  "Servants,"  (in  the  original  Greek, 
bond  servants  or  slaves,)  "  be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your 
masters,  according  to  the  flesh,  with  fear  and  trembling,  in 
singleness  of  your  hearts,  as  unto  Christ.  Not  with  eye-ser 
vice,  as  men-pleasers,  but  as  the  servants  of  Christ,  doing 
the  will  of  God  from  the  heart,  with  good  will  doing  service, 
as  to  the  Lord,  and  not  unto  men,  knowing  that  whatsoever 
good  thing  any  man  doeth,  the  same  shall  he  receive  of  the 
Lord,  whether  he  be  bond  or  free.  And  ye  masters,  do  the 
same  things  unto  them,  forbearing  threatening,  knowing  that 
your  Master  also  is  in  heaven,  neither  is  there  any  respect 
of  persons  with  him."  (Eph.  6  :  5-9.) 

Again,  to  the  Colossians,  St.  Paul  repeats  the  same  com 
mandments.  "  Servants,"  (that  is,  bond  servants  or  slaves,) 
"  obey  in  all  things  your  masters  according  to  the  flesh,  not 
with  eye-service,  as  men-pleasers,  but  in  singleness  of  heart, 
fearing  God."  (Col.  3  :  22.)  "Masters,  give  unto  your  ser 
vants  that  which  is  just  and  equal,  knowing  that  ye  also 
have  a  master  in  heaven."  (Col.  4:1.) 

Again,  the  same  inspired  teacher  lays  down  the  law  in 
very  strong  terms,  to  Timothy,  the  first  Bishop  of  Ephesus  ; 


14  BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY. 

"  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yoke,"  (that  is,  the 
yoke  of  bondage,)  "  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  all 
honor,  that  the  name  of  God  and  his  doctrine  be  not  blas 
phemed.  And  they  that  have  believing  masters,  let  them 
not  despise  them  because  they  are  brethren,  but  rather  do 
them  service  because  they  are  faithful  and  beloved,  partakers 
of  the  benefit.  These  things  teach  and  exhort.  If  any  man 
teach  otherwise,  and  consent  not  to  wholesome  words,  even  the 
words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which 
is  according  to  godliness,  he  is  proud,  Jenoicing  nothing,  but 
doting  about  questions  and  strifes  of  words,  whereof  cometh 
envy,  strife,  railings,  evil  surmisings,  perverse  disputings  of 
men  of  corrupt  minds  and  destitute  of  the  truth,  supposing 
that  gain  is  godliness.  From  such  withdraw  thyself.  But 
godliness  with  contentment  is  'great  gain.  For  we  brought 
nothing  into  this  world,  and  it  is  certain  we  can  carry  noth 
ing  out.  And  having  food  and  raiment,  let  us  be  therewith 
content."  (1  Tim.  6  :  1-8.) 

Lastly,  St.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  Philemon,  informs  him 
that  he  had  sent  back  his  fugitive  slave,  whom  the  Apostle 
had  converted  to  the  Christian  faith  during  his  imprison 
ment,  asking  the  master  to  forgive  and  receive  his  penitent 
disciple.  "  I  beseech  thee  for  my  son  Onesimus,"  saith  he, 
"  whom  I  have  begotten  in  my  bonds,  which  in  time  past 
was  to  thee  unprofitable,  but  now  profitable  to  thee  and  to 
me,  whom  I  have  sent  again  :  thou  therefore  receive  him  that 
is  mine  own  bowels,  whom  I  would  have  retained  with  me, 
that  in  thy  stead  he  might  have  ministered  unto  me  in  the 
bonds  of  the  gospel.  But  without  thy  mind  would  I  do 
nothing,  that  thy  benefit  should  not  be  as  it  were  of  neces 
sity,  but  willingly.  For  perhaps  he  therefore  departed  for 
a  season,  that  thou  shouldst  receive  him  forever,  not  now  as 
a  servant,  but  above  a  servant,  a  brother  beloved,  specially 
to  me,  but  how  much  more  to  thee,  both  in  the  flesh  and  in 
the  Lord?  If  thou  countest  me  therefore  a  partner,  receive 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY.  15 

him  as  myself.  If  he  hath  wronged  thee  or  oweth  thee  aught, 
put  that  on  mine  account.  I  Paul  have  written  it  with  mine 
own  hand,  I  will  repay  it ;  albeit  I  do  not  say  to  thee  how 
thou  owest  unto  me  thine  own  soul  besides."  (Ep.  to  Phile 
mon  5,  10,  19.) 

The  evidence  of  the  New  -Testament  is  thus  complete, 
plainly  proving  that  the  institution  of  slavery  was  not  abol 
ished  by  the  Gospel.  Compare  now  the  course  of  the  ultra- 
abolitionist,  with  that  of  Christ  and  his  inspired  apostle. 
The  divine  Redeemer  openly  rebukes  the  sanctimonious 
Pharisees,  "  who  made  void  the  law  of  God  by  their  tradi 
tions."  He  spares  not  the  wealthy,  infidel  Sadducees.  He 
denounces  the  hypocritical  Scribes,  who  "  loved  the  upper 
most  rooms  at  feasts  and  to  be  called  of  men,  Rabbi,  Rabbi." 
He  calls  the  royal  Herod  "  that  fox,"  entirely  regardless  of 
the  king's  displeasure.  He  censures  severely  the  Jewish 
practice  of  divorcing  their  wives  for  the  slightest  cause,  and 
vindicates  the  original  sanctity  of  marriage.  He  tells  the 
deluded  crowd  of  his  enemies  that  they  are  "  the  children  ol 
the  devil,  and  that  the  lusts  of  their  fathers  they  would  do." 
He  makes  a  scourge  of  small  cords,  and  drives  the  buyers 
and  sellers  out  of  the  temple.  And  while  he  thus  rebukes 
the  sins  of  all  around  him,  and  speaks  with  divine  authority, 
he  proclaims  himself  the  special  friend  and  patron  of  the 
poor — preaches  to  them  his  blessed  doctrine,  on  the  moun 
tain,  by  the  sea-side,  or  in  the  public  streets,  under  the  open 
canopy  of  heaven — heals  their  diseases,  partakes  of  their 
humble  fare,  and,  passing  by  the  rich  and  the  great,  chooses 
Iris  apostles  from  the  ranks  of  the  publicans  and  the  fisher 
men  of  Galilee.  Yet  he  lived  in  the  midst  of  slavery,  main 
tained  over  the  old  heathen  races,  in  accordance  with  the 
Mosaic  law,  and  uttered  not  one  word  against  it !  What 
proof  can  be  stronger  than  this,  that  he  did  not  regard  it  as 
a  sin  or  a  moral  evil  ?  And  what  contrast  can  be  more 
manifest  than  this  example  of  Christ  on  the  one  hand,  and 


16  BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY. 

the  loud  and  bitter  denunciations  of  our  anti-slavery  preach 
ers  and  politicians,  calling  themselves  Christians,  on  the 
other  ?  For  they  not  only  set  themselves  against  the  Word 
of  God  in  this  matter,  condemning  slavery  as  the  "monster 
sin,"  the  "  sum  of  all  villainies,"  but — strange  to  say — they 
do  it  in  the  very  name  of  that  Saviour  whose  whole  line  of 
conduct  was  the  very  opposite  of  their  own ! 

Look  next  at  the  contrast  afforded  by  the  inspired  Apos 
tle  of  the  Gentiles.  He  preaches  to  the  slave,  and  tells  him 
to  be  obedient  to  his  master  for  Christ's  sake,  faithful  and 
submissive,  as  a  main  branch  of  religious  duty.  He  preaches 
to  the  master,  and  tells  him  to  be  just  and  equal  to  his  slave, 
knowing  that  his  Master  is  in  heaven.  He  finds  a  fugitive 
slave,  and  converts  him  to  the  Gospel,  and  then  sends  him 
back  again  to  his  old  home  with  a  letter  of  kind  recom 
mendation.  Why  does  St.  Paul  act  thus  ?  Why  does  he 
not  counsel  the  fugitive  to  claim  his  right  to  freedom,  and 
defend  that  right,  if  necessary,  by  the  strong  hand  of  vio 
lence,  even  unto  death  ?  Why  does  he  not  write  to  his  dis 
ciple,  Philemon,  and  rebuke  him  for  the  awful  sin  of  holding 
a  fellow-man  in  bondage,  and  charge  it  upon  him,  as  a  solemn 
duty,  to  emancipate  his  slaves,  at  the  peril  of  his  soul  ? 

The  answer  is  very  plain.  St.  Paul  was  inspired,  and  knew 
the  will  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  was  only  intent  on 
obeying  it.  And  who  are  we,  that  in  our  modern  wisdom 
presume  to  set  aside  the  Word  of  God,  and  scorn  the  ex 
ample  of  the  divine  Redeemer,  and  spurn  the  preaching  and 
the  conduct  of  the  apostles,  and  invent  for  ourselves  a 
"  higher  law  "  than  those  holy  Scriptures  which  are  given 
to  us  as  "  a  light  to  our  feet  and  a  lamp  to  our  paths,"  in  the 
darkness  of  a  sinful  and  a  polluted  world  ?  Who  are  we 
that  virtually  blot  out  the  language  of  the  sacred  record, 
and  dictate  to  the  majesty  of  heaven  what  HE  shall  regard 
as  sin  and  reward  as  duty  ?  Who  are  we  that  are  ready  to 
trample  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  tear  to  shreds  the 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY.  17 

Constitution  of  our  country,  and  even  plunge  the  land  into 
the  untold  horrors  of  civil  war,  and  yet  boldly  pray  to  the 
God  of  Israel  to  bless  our  very  acts  of  rebellion  against  his 
own  sovereign  authority?  Woe  to  our  Union  when  the 
blind  become  the  leaders  of  the  blind !  Woe  to  the  man 
who  dares  to  "  strive  against  his  Maker  !" 

Yet  I  do  not  mean  to  charge  the  numerous  and  respectable 
friends  of  this  popular  delusion  with  a  willful  or  conscious 
opposition  to  the  truth.     They  are  seduced,  doubtless,  in  the 
great  majority  of  cases,  by  the  feelings  of  a  false  philanthro 
py,  which  palliates,  if  it  can  not  excuse,  their  dangerous 
error.     Living  far  away  from  the  Southern  States,  with  no 
practical  experience  of  the  institution,  and  accustomed  from 
their  childhood  to  attach  an  inordinate  value  to  their  per 
sonal  liberty,  they  are  naturally  disposed  to  compassionate 
the  negro  race,  and  to  believe  that  the  slave  must  be  su 
premely  wretched  in  his  bondage.     They  are  under  no  spe 
cial  inducement  to  "search  the  Scriptures"  on  this  par 
ticular  subject,  nor  are  they  in  general,  I  am  sorry  to  say, 
accustomed  to  study  the  Bible  half  as  much  as  they  read  the 
newspapers,  the  novel,  and  the  magazine.     There  they  find 
many  revolting  pictures  of  slavery,  and  they  do  not  pause  to 
ask  the  question  whether  they  are  just  and  faithful.    Perhaps 
a  fugitive  comes  along,  who  has  fled  from  his  master,  and 
who,  in  justification  of  himself,  will  usually  give  a  very  dis 
torted  statement  of  the  facts,  even  if  he  does  not  invent  them 
altogether.    And  these  good  and  kind-hearted  people  believe 
it  all  implicitly,  without  ever  remembering  the  rule  about 
hearing  both  sides  before  we  form  our  opinion.     Of  course, 
they  sympathize  warmly  with  the  poor  oppressed  African, 
and  are  generously  excited  to  hate  the  system  of  slavery  with 
all  their  heart.    Then  the  eloquent  preacher  chooses  it  for  the 
favorite  topic  of  his  oratory.     The  theme  is  well  adapted  to 
rouse  the  feelings,  and  it  is  usually  by  no  means  difficult  to 
interest  and  gratify  the  audience,  when  the  supposed  sins  of 


18  BIBLE   VIEW   OF  SLAVERY. 

others,  which  they  are  under  no  temptation  to  commit,  are 
made  the  object  of  censure.  In  due  time,  when  the  public 
mind  is  sufficiently  heated,  the  politician  lays  hold  of  the 
subject,  and  makes  the  anti-slavery  movement  the  watch 
word  of  party.  And  finally  the  Press  follows  in  the  wake 
of  the  leaders,  and  the  fire  is  industriously  fanned  until  it 
becomes  a  perfect  blaze ;  while  the  admiring  throng  sur 
round  it  with  exultation,  and  fancy  its  lurid  light  to  be 
from  heaven,  until  the  flames  begin  to  threaten  their  own 
security. 

Such  has  been  the  perilous  course  of  our  Northern  senti 
ment  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  great  majority,  in 
every  community,  are  the  creatures  of  habit,  of  association, 
and  of  impulse ;  and  every  allowance  should  be  made  for 
those  errors  which  are  committed  in  ignorance,  under  a  gen 
erous  sympathy  for  what  they  suppose  to  be  the  rights  of 
man.  I  can  not,  however,  make  the  same  apology  for  those 
who  are  professionally  pledged  to  understand  and  inculcate 
the  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  On  that  class  of  our  public  in 
structors,  the  present  perilous  crisis  of  the  nation  casts  a 
fearful  responsibility.  Solemly  bound  by  their  sacred  office 
to  preach  the  "Word  of  God,  and  to  follow  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  as  the  heralds  of  "  peace  and  good  will  to  men," 
they  seem  to  me  strangely  regardless,  on  this  important  sub 
ject,  of  their  highest  obligations.  But  it  is  not  for  me  to 
judge  them.  To  their  own  Master,  let  them  stand  or  fall. 

I  have  promised,  however,  to  notice  the  various  objections 
which  have  been  raised  in  the  popular  mind  to  the  institution 
of  Southern  slavery,  and  to  these  I  shall  now  proceed. 

First  on  this  list  stand  the  propositions  of  the  far-famed 
Declaration  of  Independence,  "  that  all  men  are  created 
equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain 
unalienable  rights  ;  that  among  these  are  life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness."  These  statements  are  here  called 
"  self-evident  truths."  But  with  due  respect  to  the  cele- 


BIBLE  VIEW   OF  SLAVERY.  19 

brated  names  which  are  appended  to  this  document,  I  have 
never  been  able  to  comprehend  that  they  are  "truths"  at  all. 
x  In  what  respect  are  men  "created  equal,"  when  every 
thoughtful  person  must  be  sensible  that  they  are  brought 
into  the  world  with  all  imaginable  difference  in  body,  in 
mind,  and  in  every  characteristic  of  their  social  position  ? 
Notwithstanding  mankind  have  all  descended  from  one  com 
mon  parent,  yet  we  see  them  divided  into  distinct  races,  so 
strongly  marked,  that  infidel  philosophers  insist  on  the  im 
possibility  of  their  having  the  same  ancestry.  Where  is  the 
equality  in  body  between  the  child  born  with  the  hereditary 
taint  of  scrofula  or  consumption,  and  the  infant  filled  with 
health  and  vigor  ?  Where  is  the  equality  in  mind  between 
one  who  is  endowed  with  talent  and  genius,  and  another 
whose  intellect  borders  on  idiocy  ?  Where  is  the  equality 
in  social  position  between  the  son  of  the  Esquimaux  or  Hot 
tentot,  and  the  heir  of  the  American  statesman  or  British 
peer  ? 

Neither  am  I  able  to  admit  that  all  men  are  endowed  with 
the  unalienable  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi 
ness,  because  it  is  manifest  that  since  "  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  and  death  by  sin,"  they  are  all  alienated,  forfeited 
and  lost  through  the  consequences  of  transgression.  Life  is 
alienated  not  only  by  the  sentence  of  the  law,  but  by  in 
numerable  forms  of  violence  and  accident.  Liberty  is  alien 
ated  not  only  by  imprisonment,  but  by  the  irresistible  re 
straints  of  social  bondage  to  the  will,  the  temper,  the  preju 
dices,  the  customs,  or  the  interests  of  others,  so  that  there 
is  hardly  an  individual  to  be  found,  even  in  the  most  favored 
community,  who  has  really  the  liberty  of  word  and  action  so 
confidently  asserted  as  the  unaliendble  right  of  all  men.  And 
as  regards  the  "pursuit  of  happiness,"  alas  !  what  multitudes 
alienate  their  right  to  it,  beyond  recovery,  not  only  in  the 
cells  of  the  penitentiary,  but  in  the  reckless  indulgence  of 
their  appetites  and  passions,  in  the  disgust  arising  from  ill- 


20  BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY. 

chosen  conjugal  relations,  in  their  associations  with  the  pro 
fligate  and  the  vile,  in  the  pain  and  suffering  of  sickness  and 
poverty  as  the  results  of  vice,  in  the  ruin  of  the  gambler,  the 
delirium  of  the  drunkard,  the  despair  of  the  suicide,  and  in 
every  other  form  of  moral  contamination  ! 

If  it  be  said,  however,  that  the  equality  and  unalienable 
rights  of  all  men,  so  strongly  asserted  by  this  famous  De 
claration,  are  only  to  be  taken  in  apolitical  sense,  I  am  will 
ing  to  concede  that  this  may  be  the  proper  interpretation  of 
its  intended  meaning,  but  I  can  not  see  how  it  removes  the 
difficulty.  The  statement  is  that  "all  men  are  created  equal" 
and  that  "  the  CREATOR  has  endowed  them  with  these  un 
alienable  rights."  Certainly  if  the  authors  of  this  celebrated 
document  designed  to  speak  only  of  political  rights  and  po 
litical  equality,  they  should  not  have  thus  referred  them  to 
the  act  of  creation  ;  because  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  since 
the  beginning  of  human  government,  men  have  been  created 
with  all  imaginable  inequality,  under  slavery,  under  despot 
ism,  under  aristocracy,  under  limited  monarchy,  under  every 
imaginable  form  of  political  strife  and  political  oppression. 
In  no  respect  whatever,  that  I  can  discover,  has  the  Al 
mighty  sent  our  race  into  the  world  with  these  imaginary 
rights  and  this  fanciful  equality.  In  his  sight  the  whole 
world  is  sinful,  rebellious,  and  lying  under  the  just  condem 
nation  of  his  violated  laws.  Our  original  rights,  whatever 
they  might  have  been,  are  all  forfeited  and  gone.  And  since 
the  fall,  mankind  have  no  rights  to  claim  at  the  hands  of  the 
Creator.  Our  whole  dependence  is  on  his  mercy  and  com 
passion.  And  he  dispenses  these  according  to  his  sovereign 
will  and  pleasure,  on  no  system  of  equality  that  any  human 
eye  can  discover,  and  yet,  as  every  Christian  must  believe, 
on  the  eternal  principles  of  perfect  benevolence,  in  union 
with  impartial  justice,  and  boundless  knowledge,  and  wis 
dom  that  can  not  err. 

Where,  then,  I  ask,  did  the  authors  of  the  Declaration  of 


BIBLE   VIEW   OF  SLAVERY.  21 

Independence  find  their  warrant  for  such  a  statement  ?  It 
was  probably  judicious  enough  to  call  these  propositions 
"  self-evident  truths,"  because  it  seems  manifest  that  no  man 
can  prove  them.  To  estimate  aright  the  vast  diversity 
among  the  races  of  mankind,  we  may  begin  with  our  own, 
the  highly  privileged  Anglo-Saxon,  which  now  stands  at  the 
head,  although  our  ancestors  were  heathen  barbarians  only 
two  thousand  years  ago.  From  this  we  may  go  down  the 
descending  scale  through  the  Turks,  the  Chinese,  the  Tar 
tars,  the  Japanese,  the  Egyptians,  the  Hindoos,  the  Indian 
tribes,  the  Laplanders,  the  Abyssinians,  the  Africans,  and 
how  is  it  possible  to  imagine  that  God  has  made  them  all 
equal !  As  truly  might  it  be  said  that  all  the  trees  of  the 
forest  are  equal — that  all  the  mountains,  and  seas,  and  rivers 
are  equal — that  all  the  beasts  of  the  field  are  equal — that  all 
the  birds  of  the  air  are  equal.  The  facts  rather  establish  the 
very  contrary.  The  Deity  seems  to  take  pleasure  in  exhibit 
ing  a  marvelous  wealth  of  power  through  the  rich  variety  of 
all  his  works,  so  that  no  two  individuals  of  any  species  can 
be  found  in  all  respects  alike.  And  hence  we  behold  a  grand 
system  of  OKDEE  and  GRADATION,  from  the  thrones,  dominions, 
principalities,  and  powers  in  heavenly  places,  rank  below 
rank,  to  man.  And  then  we  see  the  same  system  throughout 
our  earth  displayed  in  the  variety  of  races,  some  higher, 
some  lower  in  the  scale — in  the  variety  of  governments,  from 
pure  despotism  to  pure  democracy — in  the  variety  of  privi 
lege  and  power  among  the  subjects  of  each  government, 
some  being  born  to  commanding  authority  and  influence, 
while  others  are  destined  to  submit  and  obey.  Again,  we 
behold  the  system  continued  in  the  animal  creation,  from  the 
lordly  lion  down  to  the  timid  mole,  from  the  eagle  to  the 
humming  bird,  from  the  monsters  of  the  deep  to  the  sea-star 
in  its  shell.  The  same  plan  meets  us  in  the  insect  tribes. 
Some  swift  and  powerful,  others  slow  and  weak,  some  mar 
shaled  into  a  regular  government — monarchy  in  the  bee-hive, 


22  BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY. 

aristocracy  in  the  ant-hill,  while  others,  like  the  flies,  have 
no  government  at  all.  And  in  perfect  harmony  with  this 
divine  arrangement,  the  inanimate  creation  presents  us  with 
the  same  vast  variety.  The  canopy  of  heaven  is  studded 
with  orbs  of  light,  all  differing  in  magnitude,  all  differing  in 
radiance,  and  all  yielding  to  the  sovereign  splendor  of  the 
sun.  The  earth  is  clothed  with  the  most  profuse  diversity 
of  vegetation,  from  the  lofty  palm  down  to  the  humble  moss. 
The  mineral  kingdom  shines  with  gold,  silver,  iron,  copper, 
and  precious  stones,  in  all  conceivable  forms  and  colors. 
From  the  mammoth  cave  down  to  the  minutest  crystal — 
from  mountains  of  granite  down  to  the  sand  upon  the  shore, — 
all  is  varied,  multiform,  unequal :  yet  each  element  has  its 
specific  use  and  beauty,  and  the  grand  aggregate  unites  in 
the  sublime  hymn  of  praise  to  the  wisdom,  the  goodness,  and 
the  stupendous  resources  of  that  ineffable  power  which  pro 
duced  the  whole. 

This  brief  and  most  inadequate  sketch  of  the  order  of  cre 
ation  may  serve  at  least  to  show  that  the  manifest  inequality 
in  the  condition  of  mankind  is  no  exception  to  the  rule,  but 
as  sustained  by  all  analogy.  It  is  the  will  of  God  that  it 
should  be  so,  and  no  human  sagacity  or  effort  can  prevent 
it.  And  the  same  principle  exists  in  our  political  relations. 
We  may  talk  as  we  please  of  our  equality  in  political  rights 
and  privileges,  but  in  point  of  fact,  there  is  no  such  thing. 
Amongst  the  other  civilized  nations  it  is  not  even  pretended. 
None  of  the  great  galaxy  of  European  governments  can  have 
a  better  title  to  it  than  England,  yet  who  would  be  so  ab 
surd  as  to  claim  political  equality  in  a  land  of  monarchy,  of 
hereditary  nobles,  of  time-honored  aristocracy  ?  The  best  ap 
proach  to  political  equality  is  confessedly  here,  and  here  only. 
Yet  even  here,  amidst  the  glories  of  our  universal  suffrage, 
where  is  it  to  be  found  ?  Political  equality,  if  it  means  any 
thing,  must  mean  that  every  man  enjoys  the  same  right  to 
political  office  and  honor ;  because  the  polity  of  any  govern- 


BIBLE  VIEW   OF  SLAVERY.  23 

ment  consists  in  its  system  of  administration,  and  hence  it 
results,  of  necessity,  that  those  who  can  not  possibly  be  ad 
mitted  to  share  in  this  administration,  have  no  political 
equality  with  those  who  can.  We  do,  indeed,  say  that  the 
people  are  sovereign.  But  every  one  knows  full  well  that 
the  comparative  few  who  are  qualified  to  take  the  lead,  by 
talent,  by  education,  by  natural  tact,  and  by  a  conjunction 
of  favoring  circumstances,  are  practically  sovereigns  over  the 
people.  The  man  who  carries  a  hod  gives  his  vote  for  the 
candidate.  The  candidate  himself  can  do  no  more,  so  far  as 
it  concerns  the  mere  form  of  election.  Are  they  therefore 
politically  equal  ?  Who  formed  the  party  to  which  the  can 
didate  belongs  ?  Who  ruled  the  convention  by  which  his 
name  was  put  upon  the  list  ?  Who  arranged  the  orators 
for  the  occasion  ?  Who  subsidized  the  Press  ?  Had  the 
poor  hodman  any  share  in  the  operation,  any  influence,  any 
voice  whatever  ?  No  more  than  the  hod  which  he  carries. 
Can  any  human  power  ever  manufacture  a  candidate  out  of 
him  ?  The  notion  would  be  preposterous.  Where,  then,  is 
his  political  equality  ?  Even  here,  in  our  happy  land  of  uni 
versal  suffrage,  how  does  it  appear  that  "  all  men  are  born 
equal"?  The  proposition  is  a  sheer  absurdity.  All  men 
are  born  unequal,  in  body,  in  mind,  and  social  privileges. 
Their  intellectual  faculties  are  unequal.  Their  education  is 
unequal.  Their  associations  are  unequal.  Their  opportuni 
ties  are  unequal.  And  their  freedom  is  as  unreal  as  their 
equality.  The  poor  are  compelled  to  serve  the  rich,  and  the 
rich  are  compelled  to  serve  the  poor  by  paying  for  their 
services.  The  political  party  is  compelled  to  serve  the  lead 
ers,  and  the  leaders  are  compelled  to  scheme  and  toil  in  order 
to  serve  the  party.  The  multitude  are  dependent  on  the 
few  who  are  endowed  with  talents  to  govern.  And  the  few 
are  dependent  on  the  multitude  for  the  power,  without  which 
all  government  is  impossible.  From  the  top  to  the  bottom 
of  the  social  fabric,  the  whole  is  thus  seen  to  be  inequality 


2  BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY. 

and  mutual  dependence.  And  hence,  although  they  are  free 
from  that  special  kind  of  slavery  which  the  Southern  States 
maintain  over  the  posterity  of  Ham,  yet  they  are  all,  from 
the  highest  to  the  lowest,  in  bondage  quite  as  real,  from 
which  they  can  not  escape — the  slavery  of  circumstances, 
called,  in  the  ordinary  language  of  the  world,  NECESSITY. 

I  have  been,  I  fear,  unreasonably  tedious  in  thus  endeavor 
ing  to  show  why  I  utterly  discard  these  famous  propositions 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  It  is  because  I  am 
aware  of  the  strong  hold  which  they  have  gained  over 
the  ordinary  mind  of  the  nation.  They  are  assumed  by 
thousands  upon  thousands,  as  if  they  were  the  very  doctrines 
of  divine  truth.  And  they  are  made  the  basis  of  the  hostile 
feeling  against  the  slavery  of  the  South,  notwithstanding 
their  total  want  of  rationality.  Yet  I  do  not  wonder  that 
such  maxims  should  be  popular.  They  are  admirably  cal 
culated  to  gratify  the  pride  and  ambition  so  natural  to  the 
human  heart,  and  are  therefore  powerful  incentives  in  the 
work  of  political  revolution.  It  was  for  this  purpose,  I  pre 
sume,  that  they  were  introduced  in  that  famous  document, 
which  publicly  cast  off  the  allegiance  of  the  colonies  to  the 
British  crown.  And  the  same  doctrines  were  proclaimed  a 
few  years  later,  in  a  similar  service,  by  the  French  Directory, 
in  the  midst  of  a  far  more  terrible  revolution.  Liberty,  equal 
ity,  and  fraternity — THE  EIGHTS  OF  MAN — were  then  the 
watchwords  of  the  excited  populace,  while  their  insane 
leaders  published  the  decree  of  Atheism,  and  a  notorious 
courtesan  was  enthroned  as  the  goddess  of  reason,  and  the 
guillotine  daily  massacred  the  victims  of  democratic  fury, 
till  the  streets  of  Paris  ran  with  blood. 

I  do  not  state  this  fact  because  I  desire  to  place  the  revo 
lutions  in  the  Colonies  and  in  France  on  the  same  founda 
tion,  with  respect  to  the  spirit  or  the  mode  in  which  they 
were  conducted.  God  forbid  that  I  should  forget  the  mark 
ed  features  of  contrast  between  them!  On  the  one  side 


BIBLE   VIEW   OF   SLAVERY.  25 

there  was  religious  reverence,  strong  piety,  and  pure  disin 
terested  patriotism.  On  the  other,  there  was  the  madness 
of  Atheism,  the  brutality  of  ruffianism,  and  the  "reign  of 
terror"  to  all  that  was  good  and  true.  In  no  one  mark  or 
character,  indeed,  could  I  deem  that  there  was  any  comparison 
between  them,  save  in  this :  that  the  same  false  assumption 
of  human  equality  and  human  rights  was  adopted  in  both. 
Yet  how  widely  different  was  their  result  on  the  question 
of  negro  slavery!  The  American  revolution  produced  no 
eifect  whatever  on  that  institution ;  while  the  French  revo 
lution  roused  the  slaves  of  their  colony  in  St.  Domingo  to  a 
general  insurrection,  and  a  scene  of  barbarous  and  cruel 
butchery  succeeded,  to  which  the  history  of  the  world  con 
tains  no  parallel. 

This  brings  me  to  the  last  remarks  which  I  have  to  pre 
sent  on  this  famous  Declaration.  And  I  respectfully  ask 
my  readers  to  consider  them  maturely. 

First,  then,  it  seems  manifest,  that  when  the  signers  of 
this  document  assumed  that  "  all  men  were  born  equal," 
they  did  not  take  the  negro  race  into  account  at  all.  It  is 
unquestionable  that  the  author,  Mr.  Jefferson,  was  a  slave 
holder  at  the  time,  and  continued  so  to  his  life's  end.  It  is 
certain  that  the  great  majority  of  the  other  signers  of  the 
Declaration  were  slaveholders  likewise.  No  one  can  be 
ignorant  of  the  fact  that  slavery  had  been  introduced  into 
all  the  colonies  long  before,  and  continued  to  exist  long  after, 
in  every  State  save  one.  Surely,  then,  it  can  not  be  pre 
sumed  that  these  able  and  sagacious  men  intended  to  stultify 
themselves  by  declaring  that  the  negro  race  had  rights, 
which  nevertheless  they  were  not  ready  to  give  them.  And 
yet  it  is  evident  that  we  must  either  impute  this  crying 
injustice  to  our  revolutionary  patriots,  or  suppose  that  the 
case  of  the  slaves  was  not  contemplated. 

Nor  is  this  a  solitary  example,  for  we  have  a  complete 
parallel  to  it  in  the  preamble  to  the  Constitution,  where  the 
2 


26  BIBLE   VIEW   OF   SLAVERY. 

important  phrase,  "  We,  the  people  of  the  United  States," 
must  be  understood  with  the  very  same  limitation.  Who 
were  the  people  ?  Undoubtedly  the  free  citizens  who  voted 
for  the  Constitution.  Were  the  slaves  counted  as%a  part  of 
that  people  ?  By  no  means.  The  negro  race  had  no  voice, 
no  vote,  no  influence  whatever  in  the  matter.  Thus,  there 
fore,  it  seems  perfectly  plain  that  both  these  instruments 
must  be  understood  according  to  the  same  rule  of  interpre 
tation.  The  slaves  were  not  included  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  for  the  same  reason  precisely  that  they  were 
not  included  amongst  the  "people  "  who  adopted  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States. 

Now  it  is  the1  established  maxim  of  the  law,  that  every 
written  document  must  be  understood  according  to  the  true 
intent  of  the  parties  when  it  was  executed.  The  language 
employed  may  be  such  that  it  admits  of  a  different  sense ; 
but  there  can  be  only  one  just  interpretation,  and  that  is 
fixed  unalterably  by  the  apparent  meaning  of  its  authors  at 
the  time.  On  this  ground  alone,  therefore,  I  respectfully 
contend  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  has  no  claim 
whatever  to  be  considered  in  the  controversy  of  our  day.  I 
have  stated,  at  some  length,  my  reasons  for  rejecting  its 
famous  propositions,  as  being  totally  fallacious  and  unten 
able.  But  even  if  they  were  ever  so  "  self-evident,"  or 
capable  of  the  most  rigid  demonstration,  the  rule  of  law 
utterly  forbids  us  to  appeal  to  them  in  a  sense  which  they 
were  not  designed  to  bear. 

In  the  second  place,  however,  it  should  be  remembered 
that  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  whether  true  or  false, 
whether  it  be  interpreted  legally  or  illegally,  forms  no  part 
of  our  present  system.  As  a  great  historical  document,  it 
stands,  and  must  ever  stand,  prominent  before  the  nations 
of  the  world.  But  it  was  put  forth  more  than  seven  years 
anterior  to  the  Constitution.  Its  language  was  not  adopted 
in  that  Constitution,  and  it  has  no  place  whatever  in  the 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAYEKY.  27 

obligatory  law  of  the  United  States.  When  our  orators, 
our  preachers,  and  our  politicians,  therefore,  take  its  propo 
sitions  about  human  rights  and  human  equality,  and  set 
them  up  as  the  supreme  law,  overruling  the  Constitution 
and  the  acts  of  Congress,  which  are  the  real  law  of  the  land, 
I  can  not  wonder  enough  at  the  absurdity  of  the  proceeding. 
And  I  doubt  whether  the  annals  of  civilized  mankind  can 
furnish  a  stronger  instance  of  unmitigated  perversity. 

Thirdly,  and  lastly,  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  those  popular 
propositions,  not  only  because  I  hold  them  to  be  altogether 
fallacious  and  untrue,  for  the  reasons  already  given,  but 
further,  because  their  tendency  is  in  direct  contrariety  to 
the  precepts  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  highest  interests  of  the 
individual  man.  For  what  is  the  unavoidable  effect  of  this 
doctrine  of  human  equality  ?  Is  it  not  to  nourish  the  spirit 
of  pride,  envy,  and  contention  ?  to  set  the  servant  against 
the  master,  the  poor  against  the  rich,  the  weak  against  the 
strong,  the  ignorant  against  the  educated  ?  to  loosen  all 
the  bonds  and  relations  of  society,  and  reduce  the  whole 
duty  of  subordination  to  the  selfish  cupidity  of  pecuniary 
interest,  without  an  atom  of  respect  for  age,  for  office,  for 
law,  for  government,  for  Providence,  or  for  the  Word  of 
God? 

I  do  not  deny,  indeed,  that  this  doctrine  of  equality  is  a 
doctrine  of  immense  f> ower  to  urge  men  forward  in  a  con 
stant  struggle  for  advancement.  Its  natural  operation  is  to 
force  the  vast  majority  into  a  ceaseless  contest  with  their 
circumstances,  each  discontented  with  his  lot,  so  long  as  he 
sees  any  one  else  above  him,  and  toiling  with  unceasing 
effort  to  rise  upon  the  social  scale  of  wealth  and  importance, 
as  fast  and  as  far  as  he  can.  There  is  no  principle  of  stronger 
impulse  to  stimulate  ambition  in  every  department.  And 
hence  arises  its  manifold  influence  on  the  business,  the  enter 
prise,  the  commerce,  the  manufactures,  the  agriculture,  the 
amusements,  the  fashions,  and  the  political  strifes  of  our 


28  BIBLE  VIEW   OF  SLAVERY. 

Northern  people,  making  them  all  restless,  all  aspiring,  and 
all  determined,  if  possible,  to  pass  their  rivals  in  the  race  of 
selfish  emulation. 

But  how  does  it  operate  on  the  order,  the  stability,  and 
the  ultimate  prosperity  of  the  nation  ?  How  does  it  work 
on  the  steadfast  administration  of  justice,  the  honor  and 
purity  of  our  public  officers,  the  quiet  subordination  of  the 
various  classes  in  the  community,  the  fidelity  and  submission 
of  domestics,  the  obedience  of  children,  and  the  relations  of 
family  and  home  ?  Above  all,  how  does  it  harmonize  with 
the  great  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  that  the  Almighty  Ruler 
appoints  to  every  man  his  lot  on  earth,  and  commands  him 
to  be  satisfied  and  thankful  for  his  portion — that  we  must 
submit  ourselves  to  those  who  have  the  rule  over  us — that 
we  should  obey  the  laws  and  honor  the  magistrates — that 
the^powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God,  and  he  that  resist- 
eth  the  power  shall  receive  condemnation — that  we  may  not 
covet  the  property  of  others — that  having  food  and  raiment, 
we  should  be  therewith  content — that  we  must  avoid  strife, 
contention,  and  railing  accusations,  and  follow  peace,  char 
ity,  and  good  will,  remembering  that  the  service  of  Christ 
is  the  only  perfect  freedom,  and  that  our  true  happiness  de 
pends  not  on  the  measure  of  our  earthly  wealth,  on  social 
equality,  on  honor,  or  on  our  relative  position  in  the  com 
munity,  but  on  the  fulfilment  of  our  personal  duty  according 
to  our  lot,  in  reliance  on  his  blessing  ? 

I  have  no  more  to  add  with  respect  to  this  most  popular 
dogma  of  human  equality,  and  shall  therefore  dismiss  it,  as 
fallacious  in  itself,  and  only  mischievous  in  its  tendency.  As 
it  is  the  stronghold  of  the  ultra-abolitionist,  I  have  devoted 
a  large  space  to  its  examination,  and  trust  that  the  conclu 
sion  is  sufficiently  plain.  Happily  it  forms  no  part  of  our 
Constitution  or  our  laws.  It  never  was  intended  to  apply 
to  the  question  of  negro  slavery.  And  it  never  can  be  so 
applied  without  a  total  perversion  of  its  historical  meaning, 


BIBLE  VIEW   OF  SLAVERY.  29 

and  an  absolute  contrariety  to  all  the  facts  of  humanity,  and 
the  clear  instruction  of  the  Word  of  God. 

The  next  objection  to  the  Slavery  of  the  Southern  States 
is  its  presumed  cruelty,  because  the  refractory  slave  is  pun 
ished  with  corporal  correction.  But  our  Northern  law  al 
lows  the  same  in  the  case  of  children  and  apprentices.  Such 
was  the  established  system  in  the  army  and  the  navy  until 
very  lately.  The  whipping-post  was  a  fixed  institution  in 
England  and  Massachusetts,  and  its  discipline  was  adminis 
tered  even  to  free  citizens  during  the  last  century.  Stripes, 
not  exceeding  forty,  were  appointed  to  offenders  in  Israel 
by  divine  authority.  The  Saviour  himself  used  a  scourge 
of  small  cords  when  he  drove  the  money-changers  from  the 
temple.  Are  our  modern  philanthropists  more  merciful  than 
Christ,  and  wiser  than  the  Almighty  ? 

But  it  is  said  that  the  poor  slaves  are  treated  with  barbar-- 
ity,  and  doubtless  it  may  sometimes  be  true,  just  as  sol 
diers  and  sailors,  and  even  wives  and  children,  are  shame 
fully  abused  amongst  ourselves,  in  many  instances.     It  is 
evident,  however,  that  the  system  of  slavery  can  not  be  spe 
cially  liable  to  reproach  on  this  score,  because  every  motive 
of  interest  as  well  as  moral  duty  must  be  opposed  to  it.  The 
owner  of  the  horse  and  the  ox  rarely  treats  his  brutes  with 
severity.     Why  should  he  ?     The  animals  are  his  property, 
and  he  knows  that  they  must  be  kindly  and  carefully  used 
if  he  would  derive  advantage  from  their  labor.     Much  more 
must  the  master  of  the  slave  be  expected  to  treat  him  with 
all  fairness  and  affection,  because  here  there  are  human  feel 
ings  to  be  influenced,   and  if  the  servant  be  not  contented 
and  attached,  not  only  will  he  work  unwillingly,  but  he  may 
be  converted  into  an  enemy  and  an  "avenger.     When  the 
master  is  a  Christian,  the  principles  of  the  Gospel,  as  laid 
down  by  St.  Paul,  will  operate,  of  cours.e,   in  favor  of  the 
slave.     But  even  when  these  are  wanting,  the  motives  of 
interest  and  prudence  remain.     And  hence  I  can  not  doubt 


30  BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY. 

that  the  examples  of  barbarity  must  be  exceedingly  few,  and 
ought  to  be  regarded,  not  as  the  general  rule,  but  as  the 
rare  exceptions.  On  the  whole,  indeed,  I  see  no  reason  to 
deny  the  statement  of  our  Southern  friends,  that  their  slaves 
are  the  happiest  laborers  in  the  world.  Their  wants  are  all 
provided  for  by  their  master.  Their  families  are  sure  of  a 
home  and  maintenance  for  life.  In  sickness  they  are  kindly 
nursed.  In  old  age  they  are  affectionately  supported.  They 
are  relieved  from  all  anxiety  for  the  future.  Their  religious 
privileges  are  generously  accorded  to  them.  Their  work  is 
light.  Their  holidays  are  numerous.  And  hence  the  strong 
affection  which  they  usually  manifest  toward  their  master, 
and  the  earnest  longing  which  many,  who  were  persuaded 
to  become  fugitives,  have  been  known  to  express,  that  they 
might  be  able  to  return. 

The  third  objection  is,  that  slavery  must  be  a  sin  because 
it  leads  to  immorality.  But  where  is  the  evidence  of  this  ? 
I  dispute  not  against  the  probability  and  even  the  certainty 
that  there  are  instances  of  licentiousness  enough  among 
slaveholders,  just  as  there  are  amongst  those  who  vilify 
them.  It  would  be  a  difficult,  if  not  an  impossible  task, 
however,  to  prove  that  there  is  more  immorality  amongst 
the  slaves  themselves,  than  exists  amongst  the  lower  class 
of  freemen.  In  Sabbath-breaking,  profane  cursing  and 
swearing,  gambling,  drunkenness,  and  quarreling — in  brutal 
abuse  of  wives  and  children,  in  rowdyism  and  obscenity,  in 
the  vilest  excesses  of  shameless  prostitution — to  say  nothing 
of  organized  bands  of  counterfeiters,  thieves  and  burglars — 
I  doubt  whether  there  are  not  more  offenses  against  Christ 
ian  morality  committed  in  the  single  city  of  New- York  than 
can  be  found  amongst  the  slave  population  of  all  the  fifteen 
States  together.  The  fact  would  rather  seem  to  be  that  the 
wholesome  restraints  of  slavery,  as  a  general  rule,  must  be, 
to  a  great  extent,  an  effectual  check  upon  the  worst  kinds  of 
immorality.  And  therefore  this  charge,  so  often  brought 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY.  31 

against  it,  stands  entirely  unsupported  either  by  positive 
proof  or  by  rational  probability. 

The  fourth  objection  is  advanced  by  a  multitude  of  excel 
lent  people,  who  are  shocked  at  the  institution  of  slavery 
because  it  involves  the  principle  of  property  in  man.     Yet  I 
have  never  been  able  to  understand  what  it  is  that  so  dis 
gusts  them.     No  slaveholder  pretends  that  this  property 
extends  any  further  than  the  right  to  the  labor  of  the  slave. 
It  is  obvious  to  the  slightest  reflection  that  slavery  can  not 
bind  the  intellect  or  the  soul.     These,  which  properly  con 
stitute  the  MAX,  are  free,  in  their  own  nature,  from  all  human 
restraint.     But  to  have  a  property  in  human  labor,  under 
some  form,  is  an  essential  element  in  all  the  Avork  of  civiliz 
ed  society.     The  toil  of  one  is  pledged  for  the  service  of 
another  in  every  rank  of  life  ;  and  to  the  extent  thus  pledg 
ed,  both  parties  have  a  property  in  each  other.     The  parent 
especially  has  an  established  property  in   the  labor  of  his 
child  to  the  age  of  twenty-one,  and  has  the  further  power 
of  transferring  this  property  to  another  by  articles  of  ap 
prenticeship.     But  this,  it  may  be  said,  ends  when  the  child 
is  of  age.     True  ;  because  the  law  presumes  him  to  be  then 
fitted  for  freedom.     Suppose,  however,  that  he  belonged  to 
an  inferior  race  which  the  law  did  not  presume  to  be  fitted 
for  freedom  at  any  age,  what  good  reason  could  be  assigned 
against  the  continuance  of  the  property  ?     Such,  under  the 
rule  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  Constitution    of  the  United 
States,  is  the  case  of  the  negro.     God,  in  his  wisdom  and 
providence,  caused  the  patriarch  Noah  to  predict  that  lie 
should  be  the  servant  of  servants  to  the  posterity  of  Japheth. 
And  the  same  almighty  Ruler,  who    alone   possesses   the 
power,  has  wonderfully  adapted  the  race  to  their  condition. 
For  every  candid  observer  agrees  that  the  negro  is  happier 
and  better  as  a  slave  than  as  a  free  man,  and  no  individual 
belonging  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  stock  would  acknowledge  that 
the  intellect  of  the  negro  is  equal  to  his  own. 


32  BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY. 

There  have  been  philosophers  and  physiologists  who  con 
tended  that  the  African  race  were  not  strictly  entitled  to  "be 
called  men  at  all,  but  were  a  sort  of  intermediate  link  be 
tween  the  baboon  and  the  human  being.  And  this  notion 
is  still  maintained  by  some  at  the  present  day.  For  myself, 
however,  I  can  only  say  that  I  repudiate  the  doctrine  with 
my  whole  heart.  The  Scriptures  show  me  that  the  negro, 
like  all  other  races,  descends  from  Noah,  and  I  hold  him  to 
be  a  MAN  AND  A  BKOTHEK.  But  though  he  be  my  brother, 
it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  my  equal.  Equality  can  not  be 
found  on  earth  between  the  brothers  even  in  one  little  fam 
ily.  In  the  same  house,  one  brother  usually  obtains  a  mas 
tery  over  the  rest,  and  sometimes  rules  them  with  a  perfect 
despotism.  In  England,  the  elder  brother  inherits  the  es 
tate,  and  the  younger  brothers  take  a  lower  rank  by  the 
slavery  of  circumstances.  The  eldest  son  of  the  royal  family 
is  in  due  time  the  king,  and  his  brothers  forthwith  become 
his  subjects.  Why  should  not  the  same  principle  obtain  in 
the  races  of  mankind,  if  the  Almighty  has  so  willed  it  ?  The 
Anglo-Saxon  race  is  king  ;  why  should  not  the  African  race 
be  subject,  and  subject  in  that  way  for  which  it  is  best 
adapted,  and  in  which  it  may  be  more  safe,  more  useful,  and 
more  happy  than  in  any  other  which  has  yet  been  opened 
to  it,  in  the  annals  of  the  world  ? 

I  know  that  there  may  be  exceptions,  now  and  then,  to 
this  intellectual  inferiority  of  the  negro  race,  though  I  be- 
live  it  would  be  very  difficult  to  find  one,  unless  the  inter 
mixture  of  superior  blood  has  operated  to  change  the  mental 
constitution  of  the  individual.  For  all  such  cases  the  master 
may.  provide  by  voluntary  emancipation,  and  it  is  notorious 
that  this  emancipation  has  been  cheerfully  given  in  thousands 
upon  thousands  of  instances,  in  the  majority  of  which  the 
gift  of  liberty  has  failed  to  benefit  the  negro,  and  has,  on  the 
contrary,  sunk  him  far  lower  in  his  social  position.  But  no 
reflecting  man  can  believe  that  the  great  mass  of  the  slaves, 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF   SLAVERY.  33 

amounting  to  nearly  four  millions,  are  qualified  for  free 
dom.  And  therefore  it  is  incomparably  better  for  them  to 
remain  under  the  government  of  their  masters,  who  are  likely 
to  provide  for  them  so  much  more  beneficially  than  they  could 
provide  for  themselves. 

The  difference  then,  between  the  power  of  the  Northern 
parent  and  the  Southern  slaveholder,  is  reduced  to  this, 
namely,  that  the  master  has  a  property  in  the  labor  of  his 
slave  for  life,  instead  of  having  it  only  to  the  age  of  twenty- 
one,  because  the  law  regards  the  negro  as  being .  always  a 
child  in  understanding,  requiring  a  superior  mind  to  govern 
and  direct  him.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  slave  has  just  as 
really  a  property  for  life  in  his  master's  support  and  protec 
tion,  and  this  property  is  secured  to  him  by  the  same  law,  in 
sickness  and  in  health,  in  the  helplessness  of  old  age,  as  well 
as  in  the  days  of  youthful  vigor,  including,  besides,  a  comfort 
able  maintenance  for  his  wife  and  family.  Can  any  rational 
judgment  devise  a  fairer  equivalent  ? 

The  fifth  objection  which  often  meets  the  Northern  ear, 
proceeds  from  the  overweening  value  attached,  in  our  age  and 
country,  to  the  name  of  liberty,  since  it  is  common  to  call  it 
the  dearest  right  of  man,  and  to  esteem  its  loss  as  the  great 
est  possible  calamity.  Hence  we  frequently  find  persons 
who  imagine  that  the  whole  argument  is  triumphantly  set 
tled  by  the  question  :  '•'•How  would  you  like  to  be  a  slave  ?" 

In  answer  to  this  very  puerile  interrogatory,  I  should  say 
that  whether  any  condition  in  life  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  loss 
or  an  advantage,  depends  entirely  on  circumstances.  Sup 
pose,  for  example,  that  the  Mayor  of  New-York  should  ask 
one  of  its  merchant-princes  :  "  How  would  you  like  to  be  a 
policeman  ?"  I  doubt  whether  the  question  might  not  be 
taken  for  an  insult,  and  some  words  of  indignation  would 
probably  be  uttered  in  reply.  But  suppose  that  the  same 
question  were  addressed  to  an  Irish  laborer,  with  what  feel 
ings  would  he  receive  it  ?  Assuredly  with  those  of  gratitude 


34:  BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY. 

and  pleasure.  The  reason  of  the  difference  is  obvious,  because 
the  employment  which  would  be  a  degradation  to  the  one, 
offers  promotion  and  dignity  to  the  other.  In  like  manner, 
slavery,  to  an  individual  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  which  oc 
cupies  so  high  a  rank  in  human  estimation,  would  be  a  de 
basement  not  to  be  thought  of  with  patience  for  a  moment. 
And  yet,  to  the  Guinea  negro,  sunk  in  heathen  barbarism,  it 
would  be  a  happy  change  to  place  him  in  the  hands  of  a 
Southern  master.  Even  now,  though  the  slaves  have  no  idea 
of  the  pagan  abominations  from  which  their  forefathers  were 
taken,  it  is  said  that  they  usually  value  their  privileges  as 
being  far  superior  to  the  condition  of  the  free  negroes  around 
them,  and  prefer  the  certainty  of  protection  and  support  for 
life,  to  the  hazards  of  the  liberty  on  which  the  abolitionist 
advises  them  to  venture.  How  much  more  would  they  prize 
their1  present  lot,  if  they  understood  that,  were  it  not  for  this 
very  institution  of  slavery,  they  would  be  existing  in  the 
darkest  idolatry  and  licentiousness  among  the  savages  of 
Africa,  under  the  despotic  King  of  'Dahomey,  destitute  of 
every  security  for  earthly  comfort,  and  deprived  of  all  reli 
gious  hope  for  the  world  to  come  ! 

If  men  would  reflect  maturely  on  the  subject,  they  would 
soon  be  convinced  that  liberty  is  a  blessing  to  those,  and 
only  those,  who  are  able  to  use  it  wisely.  There  are  thou 
sands  in  our  land,  free  according  to  law,  but  so  enslaved  to 
vice  and  the  misery  consequent  on  vice,  that  it  would  be  a 
mercy  to  place  them,  supposing  it  were  possible,  under  the 
rule  of  some  other  will,  stronger  and  better  than  their  OAvn. 
As  it  is,  they  are  in  bondage  to  Satan,  notwithstanding  their 
imaginary  freedom  ;  and  they  do  his  bidding,  not  merely  in 
the  work  of  the  body,  but  in  the  far  worse  slavery  of  the 
soul.  Strictly  speaking,  however,  the  freest  man  on  earth 
has  no  absolute  liberty,  for  this  belongs  alone  to  God,  and  is 
not  given  to  any  creature.  And  hence  it  is  the  glory  of  the 
Christian  to  be  the  bond  servant  of  the  divine  Redeemer 


BIBLE  VIEW   OF   SLAVERY.  35 

who  "  bought  us  to  himself  with  his  own  precious  blood." 
The  service  of  CHRIST,  as  saith  the  Apostle,  is  "  the  only 
perfect  freedom"  All  who  refuse  that  service,  are  slaves 
of  necessity  to  other  masters  ;  slaves  to  Mammon  ;  slaves  to 
ambition  ;  slaves  to  lust ;  slaves  to  intemperance  ;  slares  to 
a  thousand  forms  of  anxious  care  and  perplexity  ;  slaves  at 
best  to  pride  and  worldly  decorum,  and  slaves  to  circum 
stances  over  which  they  have  no  control.  And  they  are 
compelled  to  labor  without  ceasing  under  some  or  all  of 
these  despotic  rulers,  at  the  secret  will  of  that  spiritual  task 
master,  whose  bondage  does  not  end  at  death,  but  continues 
.to  eternity. 

The  sixth  objection  arises  from  the  fact  that  slavery  sepa 
rates  the  husband  from  the  wife  and  the  parents  from  the 
children.  Undoubtedly  it  sometimes  does  so  from  necessity. 
Before  we  adopt  this  fact,  however,  as  an  argument  against 
slavery,  it  is  only  fair  to  inquire  whether  the  same  separa 
tion  do  not  take  place,  perhaps  quite  as  frequently,  amongst 
those  who  call  themselves  free.  The  laboring  man  who  has 
a  large  family  is  always  obliged  to  separate  from  his  child 
ren,  because  it  is  impossible  to  support  them  in  his  humble 
home.  They  are  sent  to  service,  therefore,  one  to  this  mas 
ter  and  another  to  that,  or  bound  as  apprentices,  as  the  case 
may  be,  and  thus  the  domestic  relations  are  superseded  by 
strangers,  for  the  most  part  beyond  recovery.  So  among 
the  lower  orders,  the  husbands  are  separated  from  their 
wives  by  the  same  necessity.  How  many,  even  of  the 
better  classes,  have  left  their  homes  to  seek  their  fortune 
in  the  gold  regions !  How  many  in  Europe  have  aban 
doned  their  families  for  Australia,  or  the  United  States,  or 
the  Canadas  !  How  many  desert  them  from  pure  wicked 
ness — a  crime  which  can  hardly  happen  under  the  South 
ern  system !  But  above  all,  how  constantly  does  this  sepa 
ration  take  place  amongst  our  soldiers  and  sailors,  so  that 
neither  war  nor  foreign  commerce  could  be  carried  on  at 


86  BIBLE   VIEW   OF   SLAVERY. 

all  without  it !  All  these  are  borne  by  freemen,  under  the 
slavery  of  circumstances.  Is  it  wise  to  declaim  against  this 
necessity  in  one  form,  when  we  are  forced  to  submit  to  it  in 
so  many  other  kinds  of  the  same  infliction  ? 

There  is  only  one  other  argument  which  occurs  to  me, 
requiring  notice,  and.  that  is  based  upon  the  erroneous  no- 
don  that  the  laws  of  God  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  al 
lowed  polygamy  as  well  as  slavery ;  and,  therefore,  it  is 
inferred  that  the  legislation  of  the  Old  Testament  is  of  no 
authority  upon  the  subject,  but  as  the  Gospel  did  away  the 
first,  so  also  it  should  do  away  the  other. 

The  facts  here  are  misunderstood,  and  the  inference  is 
without  any  real  foundation.  Let  us  look  at  the  matter  as 
it  is  explained  by  the  Saviour  himself.  "  The  Pharisees 
came  to  him,  tempting  him,  and  saying  unto  him :  Is  it  law 
ful  for  a  man  to  put  away  his  wife  for  every  cause  ?  And 
he  answered  and  said  unto  them  :  Have  ye  not  read  that  he 
which  made  them  at  the  beginning  made  them  male  and  fe 
male  ;  and  said,  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  father  and 
mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife,  and  they  twain  shall  be 
one  flesh  ?  Wherefore  they  are  no  more  twain,  but  one 
flesh.  What,  therefore,  God  hath  joined  together,  let  no 
man  put  asunder.  They  say  unto  him  :  Why  did  Moses  then 
command  to  give  a  writing  of  divorcement,  and  put  her 
away  ?  He  saith  unto  them  :  Moses,  because  of  the  hard 
ness  of  your  hearts,  suffered  you  to  put  away  your  wives, 
but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so.  And  I  say  unto  you, 
Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife,  except  it  be  for  fornica 
tion,  and  shall  marry  another,  committeth  adultery,  and 
whoso  marrieth  her  that  is  put  away  doth  commit  adultery." 
(Matt.  19  :  3-9.) 

Now  here  our  Lord  plainly  lays  down  the  original  law  of 
marriage,  referring  expressly  to  Adam  and  Eve,  one  man 
and  one  woman,  declared  to  be  one  flesh,  and  adding  the 
command,  What  God  hath  joined  together,  let  no  man  put 


BIBLE  VIEW   OF  SLAVERY.  37 

asund&r.  But  it  is  evident  that  polygamy  must,  of  neces 
sity,  interfere  with  this  divine  union.  The  twain  can  no 
longer  be  oneflesli,  when  another  wife  is  brought  between 
them,  because  the  new  wife  must  deprive  the  former  one  of 
her  exclusive  rights  and  privileges,  and  the  husband  de 
stroys  the  very  unity  which  God  designed  in  joining  them 
together.  The  doctrine  of  our  Saviour,  therefore,  restores 
the  law  of  marriage  to  its  original  sanctity ;  and  the  apostles, 
accordingly,  always  speak  of  the  wife  in  the  singular  num 
ber,  in  no  instance  appearing  to  contemplate  the  possibility 
of  the  Christian  having  more  wives  than  one,  while,  in  the 
case  of  a  bishop,  St.  Paul  specifies  it  as  an  essential  condition 
that  he  shall  be  "  the  husband  of  one  wife."  (l  Tim.  3  :  2.) 
But  how  had  the  chosen  people  been  allowed  for  so  many 
centuries  to  practice  polygamy,  and  divorce  their  wives  for 
the  slightest  cause  ?  Our  Lord  explains  it  by  saying  that 
Moses  suffered  them  to  put  away  their  wives  "  because  of 
the  hardness  of  their  hearts."  The  special  questions  ad 
dressed  to  him  by  the  Pharisees  y  did  not,  indeed,  refer  to 
polygamy,  but  only  to  the  liberty  of  divorce,  for  at  that 
time  it  should  seem  that  the  practice  of  polygamy  had  well- 
nigh  ceased  in  Judea^  and  it  is  certainly  not  countenanced 
by  the  Jewish  laws  at  this  day.  The  principle,  however,  is 
precisely  the  same  in  the  two  cases.  Dissatisfaction  with 
the  present  wife  and  desire  for  another  were  the  cause  of 
action  in  both  ;  and  when  the  husband  did  not  wish  to  be 
burdened  by  the  murmurs  or  the  support  of  his  old  com 
panion,  he  would  naturally  prefer  to  send  her  away,  in  order 
to  make  room  for  her  successor.  We  see,  then,  how  readily 
this  facility  of  divorce  became  the  mode  in  which  the  Jews 
of  that  day  sought  for  the  gratification  of.  their  capricious 
attachments,  instead  of  the  more  expensive  and  troublesome 
system  of  polygamy.  And  hence  our  Lord  applied  the 
remedy,  where  it  was  specially  required,  by  forbidding 
divorces  unless  for  the  weightiest  cause,  such  as  adultery, 


38  BIBLE  VIEW   OF  SLAVERY. 

Yet  this  was  no  change  in  the  divine  arrangement,  which 
had  been  the  same  from  the  beginning.  He  expressly  de 
clares,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  latitude  assumed  by  the 
Israelites  was  an  indulgence  granted  by  Moses,  on  account 
of  "  the  hardness  of  their  hearts."  And  this  is  a  very  dif 
ferent  thing  from  an  authoritative  decree  of  the  Almighty. 

It  is  surely  therefore  manifest,  from  this  language  of  our 
Saviour,  that  God  had  never  given  any  direct  sanction  to 
polygamy.  Doubtless,  as  we  must  infer  from  many  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament,  it  had  become  common  among  the 
Israelites,  who,  supposing  themselves  justified  by  the  case 
of  Jacob,  had  probably  adopted  it  in  so  many  instances  that 
Moses  did  not  think  it  safe  or  prudent  to  put  it  down,  lest 
worse  evils  might  follow,  unless  he  was  constrained  to  do  so 
by  the  positive  command  of  the  Almighty.  All  that  can  be 
truly  stated,  therefore,  is,  that  no  such  positive  command 
was  given,  and  the  Deity  left  the  human  law-giver  to  use 
his  own  discretion  in  the  matter. 

Such  is  the  aspect  of  this  question,  according  to  the  state 
ment  of  our  Lord,  which  must  be  conclusive  to  every  Christ 
ian.  And  hence  we  may  perceive,  at  once,  that  the  case  is 
in  no  respect  parallel  to  that  of  slavery.  For  here  the  Al 
mighty  caused  his  favored  servant  Noah  to  predict  that  the 
posterity  of  Ham  should  be  the  servants  of  servants,  under 
the  descendants  of  Shem  and  Japheth.  He  recognized  the 
bondman  and  the  bondmaid  in  the  Ten  Commandments.  He 
laid  down  the  positive  law  to  Israel,  that  they  should  buy 
the  children  of  the  heathen  that  were  round  about  them, 
and  of  the  strangers  who  dwelt  in  their  land,  to  serve  them 
and  their  families  forever.  The  Saviour,  when  he  appeared, 
made  no  allusion  to  the  subject,  but  plainly  declared  that 
he  had  not  come  to  destroy  the  law.  The  first  church  of 
believers  in  Jerusalem  were  all  "  zealous  "  for  the  law.  And 
St.  Paul  preached  obedience  to  the  slaves  among  the  Gentile 
churches,  and  sent  a  converted  slave  back  to  his  Christian 
master. 


BIBLE   VIEW   OF  SLAVERY.  39 

Where,  then,  is  the  resemblance  between  these  cases? 
In  the  matter  of  divorce  and  polygamy,  the  Deity  is  silent, 
leaving  them  to  the  discretion  of  Moses,  until  the  Messiah 
should  come.  But  in  regard  to  the  slavery  of  Ham's  pos 
terity,  he  issues  his  commands  distinctly.  And  the  Saviour 
disclaims  the  intention  to  repeal  the  laws  of  his  heavenly 
Father,  while  he  asserts  the  original  design  of  marriage, 
and  his  inspired  Apostle  gives  express  sanction  to  slavery, 
and  speaks  of  the  one  husband  and  the  one  wife,  in  direct 
accordance  with  the  word  of  his  divine  Master.  Here, 
therefore,  it  is  plain  that  the  cases  are  altogether  unlike, 
and  present  a  contrast,  rather  than  a  comparison.  •' 

We  know  that  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  church  was 
in  harmony  with  this,  for  polygamy  was  never  permitted, 
nor  divorces  for  trifling  causes ;  while  slavery  was  allowed, 
as  being  perfectly  lawful,  so  long  as  the  slave  was  treated 
with  justice  and  kindness.  The  ancient  canons  sometimes 
advert  to  the  mode  in  which  slaves  might  be  corrected. 
Bishops  and  clergy  held  slaves.  In  later  times,  bondmen 
and  bondmaids  were  in  the  service  of  convents  and  monas 
teries.  And  no  scruple  was  entertained  upon  the  subject 
until  the  close  of  the  last  century,  when  the  new  light  burst 
forth  which  now  dazzles  the  eyes  of  so  many  worthy  people, 
and  blinds  them  not  only  to  the  plain  statements  of  Scrip 
tures,  but  to  the  interests  of  national  unity  and  peace. 

Thus,  then,  I  have  examined  the  various  topics  embraced 
in  your  inquiry,  and  the  conclusion  which  I  have  been  com 
pelled  to  adopt  must  be  sufficiently  manifest.  The  slavery 
of  the  negro  race,  as  maintained  in  the  Southern  States,  ap 
pears  to  me  fully  authorized,  both  in  the  Old  and  the  ]STew 
Testament,  which,  as  the  written  Word  of  God,  afford  the 
only  infallible  standard  of  moral  rights  and  obligations. 
That  very  slavery,  in  my  humble  judgment,  has  raised  the 
negro  incomparably  higher  in  the  scale  of  humanity,  and 
seems,  in  fact,  to  be  the  only  instrumentality  through  which 


40  BIBLE  VIEW   OF  SLAVERY. 

the  heathen  posterity  of  Ham  have  been  raised  at  all.  Out 
of  that  slavery  has  arisen  the  interesting  colony  of  Liberia, 
planted  by  slaveholders,  to  be  a  place  of  refuge  for  their 
emancipated  bondmen,  and  destined,  as  I  hope,  to  be  a  rich 
benefit,  in  its  future  growth  and  influence,  to  Africa  and  to 
the  world.  I  do  not  forget,  and  I  trust  that  I  do  not  under 
value,  the  missionary  work  of  England  and  our  own  land, 
in  that  benighted  continent.  But  I  believe  that  the  number 
of  negroes  Christianized  and  civilized  at  the  South,  through 
the  system  of  slavery,  exceeds  the  product  of  those  mission 
ary  labors,  in  a  proportion  of  thousands  to  one.  And  thus 
the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God  are  vindicated  in  the  sanc 
tion  which  his  Word  has  given,  and  the  sentence  originally 
pronounced  on  Canaan  as  a  curse  has  been  converted  into  a 
blessing. 

I  have  now  gone  over  the  whole  ground  covered  by  your 
kind  application,  and  would  only  here  repeat  that,  on  the 
question  of  slavery,  which  lies  at  the  root  of  all  our  present 
difficulties,  I  have  obeyed  the  rule  of  conscience  and  of  duty, 
in  opposition  to  my  habits,  my  prejudices,  and  my  sympa 
thies,  all  of  which  would  tend  strongly  to  the  other  side.  I 
Mieed  hardly  say  that  I  am  no  politician.  More  than  forty 
years  have  elapsed  since  I  ceased  even  to  attend  the  polls. 
But  as  a  Christian,  I  am  bound  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostles  for  my  guide.  And  as  a  citizen,  I  am  bound  to 
sustain  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  defend 
those  principles  of  law,  and  order,  and  friendly  comity, 
which  every  State  should  faithfully  regard  in  its  relations  to 
the  rest.  NOY  is  this  the  first  time  that  I  have  expressed 
my  opinions.  In  a  lecture  at  Buffalo,  published  in  1850,  and 
again  in  a  volume  entitled  The  American  Citizen,  printed 
by  Pudney  and  Russell,  in  1857,  I  set  forth  the  same  views 
on  the  subject  of  slavery ;  adding,  however,  a  plan  for  its 
gradual  abolition,  whenever  the  South  should  consent,  and 
the  whole  strength  of  the  Government  could  aid  in  its  ac- 


BIBLE   VIEW  OF  SLAVERY.  41 

complishmcnt.  Sooner  or  later,  I  believe  that  some  mea 
sure  of  that  character  must  be  adopted.  But  it  belongs  to 
the  Slave  States  themselves  to  take  the  lead  in  such  a  move 
ment.  And  meanwhile  their  legal  rights  and  their  natural 
feelings  must  be  respected,  if  we  would  hope  for  unity  and 
peace. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  only  say,  that  I  am  perfectly  aware 
how  distasteful  my  sentiments  must  be,  on  this  very  serious 
question,  to  the  great  majority  of  my  respected  fellow-citi 
zens,  in  the  region  where  divine  Providence  has  cast  my 
lot.  It  would  assuredly  be  far  more  agreeable  if  I  could 
conscientiously  conform  to  the  opinions  of  my  friends,  to 
whose  ability,  sincerity,  and  zeal,  I  am  ready  to  give  all 
just  commendation.  But  it  would  be  mere  moral  cowardice 
iii  me  to  suppress  what  I  believe  to  be  the  truth,  for  the 
sake  of  popularity.  It  can  not  be  long  before  I  shall  stand 
at  the  tribunal  of  that  Almighty  and  unerring  Judge,  who 
has  given  us  the  inspired  Scriptures  to  be  our  supreme 
directory  in  every  moral  and  religious  duty.  My  gray  hairs 
admonish  me  that  I  may  soon  be  called  to  give  an  account 
of  my  stewardship.  And  I  have  no  fear  of  the  sentence 
which  He  will  pronounce  upon  an  honest  though  humble 
effort  to  sustain  the  authority  of  His  WOED,  in  just  alliance 
with  the  Constitution,  the  peace,  and  the  public  welfare  of 
my  country. 

With  the  fervent  prayer  that  the  Spirit  of  wisdom,  unity, 
and  fraternal  kindness  may  guide  our  National  Congress, 
the  Legislatures  of  the  several  States,  and  the  sovereign  will 
of  our  whole  people,  to  a  happy  accommodation  of  every 
existing  difficulty, 

I  remain,  with  great  regard, 

Your  faithful  servant  in  Christ, 

JOHX  H.  HOPKINS, 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Vermont. 


42  THE  PROTEST. 

I  had  anticipated  the  probability  that  the  republication 
of  the  foregoing  pamphlet  would  bring  down  upon  me  a 
liberal  share  of  abuse  and  contumely  from  the  abolition 
Press,  and  I  was  prepared  to  submit  to  it  with  quiet  resigna 
tion.  But  I  was  not  prepared  for  the  extraordinary  sentence 
of  "  indignant  reprobation"  which  the  Bishop  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  and  a  majority  of  his  clergy,  thought  fit  to  fulminate 
against  my  course,  in  the  following  form,  viz. : 

PEOTEST 

OF   THE    BISHOP   AND    CLERGY    OF   THE    DIOCESE    OF   PENN 
SYLVANIA,    ETC. 

"  The  subscribers  deeply  regret  that  the  fact  of  the  exten 
sive  circulation  through  this  Diocese  of  a  letter  by  John 
Henry  Hopkins,  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Vermont,  in  de 
fense  of  Southern  Slavery,  compels  them  to  make  this  public 
protest.  It  is  not  their  province  to  mix  in  any  political  can 
vas.  But  as  ministers  of  Christ,  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  it  becomes  them  to  deny  any  complicity  or  sympathy 
with  such  a  defense." 

"  This  attempt  not  only  to  apologize,  for  slavery  in  the  ab 
stract,  but  to  advocate  it  as  it  exists  in  the  cotton  States,  and 
in  States  Avhich  sell  men  and  women  in  the  open  market  as 
their  staple  product,  is,  in  their  judgment,  unworthy  of  any 
servant  of  Jesus  Christ.  As  an  effort  to  sustain,  on  Bible 
principles,  the  States  in  rebellion  against  the  government,  in 
the  wicked  attempt  to  establish  by  force  of  arms  a  tyranny 
under  the  name  of  a  Republic,  whose  c  corner-stone '  shall 
be  the  perpetual  bondage  of  the  African,  it  challenges  their 
indignant  reprobation." 

PHILADELPHIA,  September,  1863. 

"Alonzo  Potter,  John  A.  Yaughan,  W.  H.  D.  Hatton, 

John  Rodney,  Charles  D.  Cooper,  Thomas  W.  Martin, 

E.  A.  Washburne,  Wilbur  F.  Paddock,          Alfred  Elwin, 

Peter  Van  Pelt,  Thomas  Crumpton,  James  W.  Robins, 


THE   PROTEST. 


43 


H.  W.  Ducachet, 
John  S.  Stone, 
George  Leeds, 
Richard  D.  Hall, 
Joseph  D.  Newlin, 

B.  Wistar  Morris, 
Daniel  S.  Miller, 
Kingston  Goddard, 
Phillips  Brooks, 
Addison  B.  Atkins, 
Herman  Hooker, 
Benjamin  Watson, 
Edward  L.  Lycett, 
Lewis  W.  Gibson, 
R.  W.  Oliver, 
Henry  Brown, 

W.  R.  Stockton, 
Edward  A.  Foggo, 
J.  Isador  Mombert, 
Joel  Rudderow, 
Archibald  Beatty, 

C.  A.  L.  Richards, 
George  A.  Strong, 
Gustavus  M.  Murray, 
George  W.  Shinn, 
Samuel  Hall, 
George  G.  Field, 
Reese  C.  Evans, 
Robert  G.  Chase, 
Samuel  Hazlehurst, 
Edwin  N.  Lightner, 
David  C.  Page, 
John  Cromlish, 
William  Preston, 
George  Slattery, 
Francis  J.  Clerc, 
Robert  J.  Parvin, 
Thomas  S.  Yocom, 
Benjamin  Dorr, 
Jehu  C.  Clay, 
William  Suddards, 


George  D.  Miles, 
B.  B.  Killikelly, 
Alexander  McLeod, 
Leighton  Coleman, 
Richard  Smith, 
Thomas  H.  Cullen, 
J.  McAlpin  Harding, 
William  Ely, 
Marison  Byllesby, 
J.  Livingston  Reese, 
Augustus  A.  Marple, 
B.  T.  Noakes, 
D.  Otis  Kellogg, 
Daniel  Washburn, 
Samuel  E.  Smith, 
Treadwell  Walden, 
Herman  L.  Duhring, 
Charles  M.  Dupuy, 
John  H.  Babcock, 
Anson  B.  Hard, 
George  A.  Latimer, 
R.  Heber  Newton, 
John  G.  Furey, 
Charles  A.  Maison, 
R.  H.  Brown, 
Richard  Newton, 
G.  Emlen  Hare, 
W.  W.  Spear, 
H.  J.  Morton, 
Jacob  M.  Douglass, 
R.  A.  Carden, 
R.  C.  Matlack, 
L.  Ward  Smith, 
Samuel  E.  Appleton, 
William  J.  Alston, 
John  Adams  Jerome, 
Joseph  A.  Stone, 
Albra  Wadleigh, 
W.  S.  Perkins, 
Francis  E.  Arnold, 
George  H.  Jenks, 


George  Bringhurst, 
Charles  W.  Duane, 
George  B.  Allinson, 
Joseph  N.  Mulford, 
James  DeW.  Perry, 
Thomas  G.  Clemson, 
Francis  D.  Hoskins, 
William  P.  Lewis, 
J.  L.  Heysinger, 
John  Long, 
Ormes  B.  Keith, 
William  N.  Diehl, 
Charles  W.  Quick, 
H.  T.  Wells, 

D.  C.  Millett, 

J.  W.  Leadenham, 
Frederick  W.  Beasley, 
John  P.  Lundy, 
George  A.  Crooke, 
Richardson  Graham, 

E.  S.  Watson, 
Samuel  Edwards, 
George  A.  Durborow, 
Joseph  R  Moore, 
Thomas  B.  Barker, 

S.  Tweedale, 
Marcus  A.  Tolman, 
John  H.  Drumm, 
J.  Newton  Spear, 
Louis  C.  Newman, 
Edward  C.  Jones, 
E.  W.  Hening, 
Samuel  Durburow, 
C.  C.  Parker, 
Henry  Purdon, 
Benjamin  H.  Abbott, 
John  H.  Marsden, 
Samuel  B.  Dalrymple, 
William  V.  Feltwell, 
John  Leithead, 
George  C.-  Drake, 


4.4:  ANSWER  TO  THE  PROTEST. 

D.  R.  Goodwin,  William  S.  Heaton,  Peter  Russell, 

M.  A.  DeW.  Howe,  John  Reynolds,  George  Kirke, 

Henry  S.  Spackman,  William  Hilton,  Henry  B.  Bartow, 

James  May,  Washington  B.  Erben,  John  K.  Murphy, 

John  A.  Childs,  John  Ireland,  J.  F.  Ohl, 

Thomas  C.  Yarnall,  Benjamin  J.  Douglass,  John  Tetlow, 

Edward  Lounsbery,  D.  C.  James,  J.  C.  Laverty, 

Henry  M.  Stuart,  E.  N.  Potter,  Charles  Higbee, 

J.  Gordon  Maxwell,  Roberts  Paul,  S.  T.  Lord. 

Robert  B.  Peet,  William  Wright, 

The  answer  to  this  strange  assault  was  the  following : 

To  the  Eight  Rev.  Alonzo  Potter,  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsyl 
vania  : 

I  have  seen,  with  great  amazement,  a  protest  against  my 
letter  on  the  "  Bible  View  of  Slavery,"  signed  by  you  and  a 
long  list  of  your  clergy,  in  which  you  condemn  it  as  "  un 
worthy  of  any  servant  of  Jesus  Christ"  as  "an  effort  to  sus 
tain,  on  Bible  principles,  the  States  in  rebellion  against  the 
government  in  the  wicked  attempt  to  establish,  by  force  of 
arms,  a  tyranny  in  the  name  of  a  Republic,  whose  corner 
stone  shall  be  the  perpetual  bondage  of  the  African,"  and  as 
such  you  say  that  it  challenges  your  "indignant  reproba 
tion" 

Now,  my  Right  Reverend  brother,  I  am  sorry  to  be  obliged 
to  charge  you,  not  only  with  a  gross  insult  against  your  senior, 
but  with  the  more  serious  offense  of  a  false  accusation.  My 
letter  was  first  published  in  January,  1861,  more  than  three 
months  before  the  war  began,  at  a  time  when  no  one  could 
anticipate  the  form  of  Government  which  the  Southern  States 
should  adopt,  or  the  course  which  Congress  might  take  in 
reference  to  their  secession.  And  when  I  consented  to'  its 
publication,  I  did  not  suppose  that  it  would  be  used  in  the 
service  of  any  political  party,  although  I  had  no  right  to 
complain,  if  it  were  so  used,  because  the  letter,  once  pub 
lished,  became  public  property.  But  in  its  present  form 
there  is  nothing  whatever  in  it  which  bears  on  the  question 


ANSWER  TO  THE  PEOTEST.  45 

of  "  rebellion,"  or  of  "  the  perpetual  bondage  of  the  African," 
or  of  "  tyranny  under  the  name  of  a  Republic,"  of  which 
slavery  should  be  the  "  corner-stone."  On  the  contrary,  I 
referred,  on  the  last  page,  to  my  lecture  published  in  Buffalo 
in  1850,  and  to  my  book  called  The  American  Citizen, 
published  in  New  York  in  1857,  where  "  I  set  forth  the  same 
views  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  adding,  however,  a  plan  for 
its  gradual  abolition,  whenever  the  South  should  consent, 
and  the  whole  strength  of  the  Government  could  aid  in  its 
accomplishment."  "  Sooner  or  later,"  I  added,  "  I  believe 
that  some  measure  of  that  character  must  be  adopted.  But 
it  belongs  to  the  Slave  States  themselves  to  take  the  lead  in 
such  a  movement.  And  meanwhile  their  legal  rights  and 
their  natural  feelings  must  be  respected,  if  we  would  hope 
for  unity  and  peace."  « 

With  these  facts  before  your  eyes,  I  am  totally  at  a  loss 
to  imagine  how  even  the  extravagance  of  party  zeal  could 
frame  against  me  so  bitter  a  denunciation.  The  whole  object 
of  my  letter  was  to  prove,  from  the  BiUe,  that  in  the  rela 
tion  of  master  and  slave  there  was  necessarily  no  sin  what 
ever.  The  sin,  if  there  were  any,  lay  in  the  treatment  of  the 
slave,  and  not  in  the  relation  itself.  Of  course,  it  was  liable 
to  abuse,  as  all  human  relations  must  be.  But  while  it  was 
certain  that  thousands  of  our  Christian  brethren  who  held 
slaves  were  treating  them  with  kindness  and  justice,  accord 
ing  to  the  Apostle's  rule,  and  earnestly  laboring  to  improve 
the  comforts  a-nd  ameliorate  the  hardships  of  the  institution, 
I  held  it  to  be  a  cruel  and  absurd  charge  to  accuse  them  as 
sinners  against  the  Divine  law,  when  they  were  only  doing 
what  the  Word  of  God  allowed,  under  the  Constitution  and 
established  code  of  their  country. 

I  do  not  know  whether  your  band  of  indignant  reproba- 
tionists  ever  saw  my  book  published  in  1857,  but  you  read 
it,  because  I  sent  you  a  copy,  and  have  your  letter  of  ac 
knowledgment,  in  which,  while  you  dissented  from  some  of 


46  ANSWER  TO   THE   PROTEST. 

my  conclusions,  you  did  it  with  the  courtesy  of  a  Christian 
gentleman.  In  that  letter  there  is  nothing  said  about  my 
opinions  being  "  unworthy  of  any  minister  of  Jesus  Christ," 
and  nothing  of  "  indignant  reprobation."  But  tempora  mu- 
tantur,  et  nos  mutamur  in  ittis. 

Yes  ;  the  times  are  indeed  sadly  changed,  and  you  have 
changed  accordingly.  For  many  years  you  have  met  in 
brotherly  council  with  these  same  Southern  slaveholders. 
You  invited  them  to  the  hospitalities  of  your  house,  and  paid 
them  special  deference.  The  new  light  of  Eastern  Aboli 
tionism  had  not  yet  risen  within  our  Church,  and  if  you  then 
thought  as  you  now  think,  you  took  excellent  care  that  no 
man  amongst  your  Southern  friends  should  know  it.  More 
over,  your  favorite  Theological  Seminary,  only  three  years 
ago,  was  the  Virginia  school  at  Alexandria,  raised  to  great 
prosperity  by  Bishop  Meade — a  slaveholder;  and  I  am  very 
sure  that  nothing  at  variance  with  my  view  of  slavery  was 
ever  taught  in  that  institution.  Yes  ;  we  may  well  say  of 
you,  as  of  many  others,  quantum  mutatus  ab  illo !  How 
changed  is  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania  in  three  years  from 
his  former  course  of  conservatism,  peace,  and  Scriptural  con 
sistency  ! 

But  the  Word  of  God  has  not  changed ;  the  doctrine  of 
the  Apostles  has  not  changed  ;  the  Constitution  of  our  coun 
try  has  not  changed ;  the  great  standards  of  religious  truth 
and  real  civic  loyalty  remain  just  as  they  were ;  and  I  re 
main  along  with  them,  notwithstanding  this  bitter  and  un 
just  assault  from  you  and  your  clergy.  I  do  not  intend  to 
imitate  your  late  style  of  vituperation,  for  I  trust  that  I 
have  learned,  even  when  I  am  reviled,  not  to  revile  again. 
I  respect  the  good  opinion  of  your  clergy,  and  am  not 
aware  that  I  have  done  any  thing  to  forfeit  it.  I  respect 
your  office,  your  talents,  your  personal  character,  and  the 
wisdom  and  success  with  which,  for  many  years,  your  Epis 
copate  has  been  conducted.  But  I  do  not  respect  your 


ANSWER  TO  THE   PROTEST.  47 

departure  from  the  old  and  well-settled  rule  of  the  Church, 
and  from  the  Apostolic  law  of  Christian  fairness  and  court 
esy.  I  do  not  believe  in  the  modern  discovery  of  those 
Eastern  philanthropists  who  deny  the  divinity  of  our  Re 
deemer,  and  attach  no  importance  to  the  Bible  except  as  it 
may  suit  themselves.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  venerated 
founders  of  our  American  Church  were  ignorant  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  blind  to  the  principles  of  Gospel  morality. 
I  do  not  believe  that' Washington  and  his  compatriots,  Avho 
framed  our  Constitution  with  such  express  provisions  for  the 
rights  of  slaveholders,  were  tyrants  and  despots — sinners 
against  the  law  of  God  and  the  feelings  of  humanity.  But 
I  do  believe  in  the  teaching  of  the  inspired  Apostles,  and  in 
the  Holy  Catholic  (or  universal)  Church,  which  you  and 
your  clergy  also  profess  to  believe.  I  know  that  the  doctrine 
of  that  Church  was  clear  and  unanimous  on  the  lawfulness 
of  slavery  for  eighteen  centuries  together ;  and  on  that  point 
I  regard  your  "  protest"  and  "  indignant  reprobation"  as  the 
idle  wind  that  passes  by. 

I  wish  you,  therefore,  to  be  advertised  that  I  shall  publish, 
within  a  few  months,  if  a  gracious  Providence  should  spare 
my  life  and  faculties,  a  full  demonstration  of  the  truth 
"  wherein  I  stand."  And  I  shall  prove  in  that  book,  by  the 
most  unquestionable  authorities,  that  slaves  and  slaveholders 
were  in  the  Church  from  the  beginning ;  that  slavery  was 
held  to  be  consistent  with  Christian  principle  by  the  fathers 
and  councils,  and  by  all  Protestant  divines  and  commenta 
tors,  up  to  the  very  close  of  the  last  century,  and  that  this 
fact  was  universal  among  all  churches  and  sects  throughout 
the  Christian  world.  I  shall  contend  that  our  Church, 
which  maintains  the  primitive  rule  of  catholic  consent  and 
abjures  all  novelties,  is  bound,  by  her  constitution,  to  hold 
fast  that  only  safe  and  enduring  rule,  or  abandon  her  apos 
tolic  claims,  and  descend  to  the  level  of  those  who  are 
"  driven  about  by  every  wind  of  doctrine."  And  I  shall 


48  ANSWER   TO   THE   PROTEST. 

print  your  "  indignant  reprobation,"  with  its  long  list  of 
names,  in  the  Introduction,  so  that  if  I  can  not  give  you  fame, 
I  may,  at  least,  do  my  part  to  give  you  notoriety. 

That  the  nineteenth  century  is  a  period  of  vast  improve 
ment  and  wonderful  discovery  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  I 
grant  as  willingly  as  any  man.  But  in  religious  truth  or 
reverence  for  the  Bible,  the  age  in  which  we  live  is  pro 
lific  in  daring  and  impious  innovation.  We  have  seen  pro 
fessedly  Christian  communities  divided  and  subdivided  on 
every  side.  We  have  seen  the  rise  and  spread  of  Universal- 
ism,  Millerism,  Pantheism,  Mormonism,  and  Spiritualism. 
We  have  seen  our  venerable  mother  Church  of  England 
sorely  agitated  by  the  contagious  fever  of  change,  on  the 
one  hand  toward  superstition,  and  on  the  other  toward  in 
fidel  rationalism.  And  we  have  heard  the  increasing  clamor 
against  the  Bible,  sometimes  from  the  devotees  of  geological 
speculation,  sometimes  from  the  bold  deniers  of  miracles  and 
prophecy,  and,  not  least  upon  the  list,  from  the  loud-tongued 
apostles  of  anti-slavery.  We  have  marked  the  orators  which 
cry :  "Down  with  the  Bible  if  it  maintains  the  lawfulness  of 
slavery.'-  We  have  marveled  at  the  senatorial  eloquence 
which  proclaimed  that  "  It  was  high  time  to  have  an  anti- 
slavery  God  and  an  anti-slavery  Bible."  We  have  heard 
the  Constitution  of  our  country  denounced  as  "A  covenant 
with  death  and  hell."  We  have  heard  the  boasted  deter 
mination  that  the  Union  shall  never  be  restored,  until  its  pro 
vision  for  the  protection  of  slavery  is  utterly  abolished.  And 
what  is  the  result  of  all  this  philanthropy  ?  The  fearful  judg 
ment  of  God  has  descended,  to  chastise  these  multiplied  acts 
of  rebellion  against  His  divine  Government,  and  what  the 
final  catastrophe  shall  be  is  only  known  to  Him  who  seeth  the 
end  from  the  beginning. 

After  forty  years  spent  in  the  ministry,  more  than  thirty  of 
which  have  been  passed  in  the  office  of  a  bishop,  I  can  look 
back  with  humble  thankfulness  to  the  Giver  of  all  £ood  for 


ANSWER   TO   THE   PROTEST.  49 

this,  at  least,  that  all  my  best  labors  have  been  directed  to 
the  preservation  of  the  Church  from  the  inroads  of  doctrinal 
innovation.  At  my  ordination  I  promised  "  so  to  minister 
the  DOCTRINE  and  sacraments  and  discipline  of  Christ,  as  the 
Lord  hath  commanded,  and  as  this  Church  hath  received  the 
same,"  and  certain  it  is  that  "  this  Church  "  had  not  received 
the  modern  doctrine  of  ultra-abolitionism  at  that  time,  as  I 
trust  she  never  will  receive  it,  because  it  is  contrary  to  the 
sacred  Scriptures.  I  also  promised  "  with  all  faithful  dili 
gence  to  banish  and  drive  away  from  the  Church  all  erron 
eous  and  strange  doctrines  contrary  to  God's  word,"  and  I 
made  those  promises  in  the  true  sense  which  the  venerable 
Bishop  White,  my  ordainer,  attached  to  them.  I  believed 
then  as  he  believed,  that  our  Southern  brethren  committed 
no  sin  in  having  slaves,  and  that  they  were  men  of  as  much 
piety  as  any  ministers  in  our  communion.  I  believed  as  he 
believed,  that  the  plain  precepts  and  practice  of  the  Apostles 
sanctioned  the  institution,  although,  as  a  matter  of  expediency 
the  time  might  come  ^vhen  the  South,  would  prefer,  as  the 
Xorth  had  done,  to  employ  free  labor.  These  promises  I 
have  kept  faithfully  to  the  present  day :  and  if,  when  I  am 
drawing  near  to  the  end  of  my  career,  I  am  to  be  condemned 
and  vilified  by  you  and  your  clergy,  because  I  still  maintain 
them  to  the  utmost  of  my  slender  ability,  be  assured,  my 
Right  Reverend  Brother,  that  I  shall  regret  the  fact  much 
more  on  your  account  than  on  my  own. 

In  conclusion,  I  have  only  to  say  that  I  feel  no  resentment 
for  the  grossly  insulting  style  of  your  manifesto.  The  sta 
bility  and  unity  of  the  Church  of  God  are  the  only  interests 
which  I  desire  to  secure,  and  I  am  too  old  in  experience  to 
be  much  moved  by  the  occasional  excesses  of  human  in- 
finnity.  JOHN  H.  HOPKINS, 

Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Vermont. 

BURLINGTON,  YT.,  Oct.  5,  1863. 


50  CONCLUDING  REMARKS, 

My  readers  are  now  in  possession  of  all  the  facts  which 
led  to  the  publication  of  the  present  volume.  What  I  pro 
mised  in  my  reply  to  my  clerical  assailants,  I  have  fulfilled, 
as  I  trust  will  be  manifest  from  the  numerous  testimonies 
which  I  have  adduced  upon  the  subject.  Knowing,  as  I  do, 
that  I  stand  upon  the  ground  which  the  Church  of  God  has 
occupied  from  the  beginning,  I  have  no  fears  for  the  result 
of  the  conflict.  It  may  be,  indeed,  that  the  subtlety  of 
Satan,  clothed  like  an  angel  of  light,  may  succeed  in  dividing 
the  Church  to  which  I  belong,  as  he  has  already  divided  so 
many  Christian  communities.  It  may  be  that  the  authority 
of  the  Bible,  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  the  decrees  of"  coun 
cils,  the  concurrent  judgment  of  Protestant  divines,  and  the 
Constitution1,  which  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  may  all 
be  unable  to  resist  the  combined  assaults  of  mistaken  philan 
thropy,  in  union  with  infidelity,  fanaticism,  and  political  ex 
pediency.  It  may  be  that  we  are  in  "  the  last  days  when 
perilous  times  shall  come,"  and  that  the  predicted  reign  of 
the  great  Antichrist  is  impending.  But  however  this  may  be, 
I  desire  that  my  lot  may  be  found  with  the  old  martyrs  and 
confessors  of  the  primitive  Church,  and  with  their  true  suc 
cessors.  I  believe  that  even  though  the  enemy  may  come 
in  like  a  flood,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  will  lift  up  a  standard 
against  him.  And  I  trust  that  the  divine  Redeemer,  who 
has  promised  to  be  with  the  Church  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
will  guard  His  heritage  from  the  irruption  of  "  all  erroneous 
and  strange  doctrines,"  and  preserve  His  faithful  people  in 
unity  and  peace. 


POSITION  OF  THE  AUTHOR.  51 


CHAPTER  I. 

To  THE  RIGHT  REV.  ALONZO  POTTER,  D.D., 

BISHOP  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  : 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER:  Before  I  enter  on  the  main  subject  of 
this  volume,  I  must  take  the  liberty  of  premising  a  brief  statement 
of  my  own  position  in  relation  to  the  controversy.  I  am  no  lover  of 
slavery,  and  no  advocate  for  its  perpetuity  any  longer  than  circum 
stances  may  seem  to  require.  It  would  be  strange  if  I  were.  Born 
in  Ireland,  educated  from  my  ninth  year,  partly  in  Trenton  and  Bor- 
dentown,  but  chiefly  in  Philadelphia,  resident  in  Pittsburgh  during 
my  practice  of  the  law,  and  the  first  eight  years  of  my  ministry  ;  re 
moved  from  thence  to  Boston,  and  then,  after  rny  election  to  the  epis 
copal  office,  becoming  a  citizen  of  Vermont,  where  I  have  lived  for 
more  than  thirty  years — all  my  habits,  sympathies,  and  associations 
are  opposed  to  slavery,  and  in  favor  of  abolition.  But  I  hold  that 
abolition  can  only  be  lawfully  accomplished  on  the  grounds  of  a  just 
and  wise  expediency,  with  a  sacred  regard  to  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
which  are  the  standard  of  the  Christian  faith,  in  accordance  with  the 
real  welfare  of  the  colored  race,  in  harmony  with  the  wishes  as  well 
as  the  best  interests  of  the  Southern  States,  and  with  a  full  recogni 
tion  of  the  rights  intended  to  be  secured  to  them  by  the  Federal 
Constitution. 

My  views  on  this  subject,  as  I  have  stated  in  the  introduction,  were 
first  published  in  a  lecture  delivered  at  Buffalo  and  Lockport  in  1850, 
and  afterwards  in  a  volume  entitled,  The  American  Citizen,  printed 
in  1857",  a  copy  of  which  was  sent  to  you  and  to  the  other  Bishops 
of  our  Church,  according  to  my  general  custom.  In  both  of  these  I 
devoted  a  large  space  to  a  plan  of  gradual  and  thorough  abolition, 
in  connection  with  the  planting  of  the  emancipated  negroes  on  the 
slave  coast  of  Africa,  under  the  fostering  care  of  commissioners,  so 
that  a  belt  of  colored  republics  should  eventually  be  established  in 
connection  with  Liberia,  to  regenerate  that  heathen  and  benighted 


52  POSITION   OF   THE   AUTHOR. 

continent ;  while  the  Southern  masters  should  be  paid  the  full  value, 
and  be  enabled  to  replace  their  former  slaves  with  free  laborers.  But 
this  I  proposed  to  have  effected  with  the  cordial  assent  of  the  South 
ern  States  and  the  cooperation  of  the  Federal  Government,  devoting 
to  it  the  whole  avails  of  the  public  lands,  and,  if  necessary,  aiding  it 
by  direct  taxation.  And  meanwhile  I  maintained  the  rights  of  the 
South  to  the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  their  domestic  institution,  on 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  Constitution  of  our  country  ; 
while  I  earnestly  urged  the  high  expediency  of  the  course  which  I 
recommended,  to  themselves,  to  the  Union,  to  Africa,  and  ultimately 
to  the  whole  civilized  world. 

The  lecture  published  in  1850  was  sent  to  the  lamented  Henry 
Clay,  then  on  his  sick-bed,  and  I  have  his  answer  in  a  long  letter, 
written  by  another  hand  at  his  dictation,  but  signed  by  .himself,  in 
which  he  expressed  his  approbation  in  strong  terms,  and  wished  that 
the  pamphlet  could  be  read  by  every  intelligent  man  throughout  the 
country.  The  plan  presented  by  the  President  of  the  United  States 
in  his  Message  to  the  Congress  of  1862,  Was  substantially  the  same, 
and  my  suggestions  were  further  developed  by  the  lectures  delivered 
in  many  places  by  Mr.  Elihu  Burritt.  I  do  not  know  that  either  the 
President  or  Mr.  Burritt  derived  their  views  from  me,  but  I  believe 
that  I  was  the  first  writer  who  published  them,  although  I  have  since 
seen  it  stated  that  Mr.  King,  of  New- York,  and  General  Harrison 
had  proposed  a  similar  scheme.  My  own  conclusions,  however,  were 
derived  from  a  combination  of  the  act  of  the  British  Parliament, 
when  they  emancipated  the  slaves  in  Jamaica,  with  the  principles  of 
the  American  Colonization  Society.  The  main  difficulty  was  to  show 
that  the  measure  was  practicable  as  well  as  expedient.  And  certain 
it  is,  that  if  our  leading  statesmen  had  been  willing,  it  might  have 
been  successfully  inaugurated  and  ultimately  accomplished  at  less 
than  half  the  sum  which  our  mournful  war  has  already  cost  the 
nation. 

I  mention  these  facts  here  more  fully  than  in  my  late  letter,  not 
for  the  purpose  of  telling  you  what  you  knew  before,  but  in  order  to 
inform  my  friends  that  I. have  not  changed  my  former  opinions — that 
I  am,  and  always  shall  be,  in  favor  of  a  gradual,  just,  and  kindly 
abolition  of  slavery,  whenever  it  may  please  Divine  Providence  to 
incline  the  minds  of  Southern  statesmen  to  adopt  it.  But  then,  a-s 
now,  I  stood  forth  as  an  honest  and  conscientious  advocate  for  their 


POSITION   OF  THE   AUTHOR.  53 

rights.  Then,  as  now,  I  contended  that  the  fair  admission  of  those 
rights  was  essential  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  Union.  Then, 
as  now,  I  opposed  the  extravagance  of  ultra-abolitionism,  because  I 
believed  it  to  be  hostile  to  the  divine  authority  of  the  Bible,  hostile 
to  the  Church  of  God,  hostile  to  the  best  interests  of  the  slaves 
themselves,  and  hostile  to  the  safety  and  prosperity  of  our  country. 
Having  thus  stated  the  kind  of  abolitionism  which  I  have  always 
advocated  in  my  humble  sphere,  I  proceed  to  set  forth  the  ultra-abo 
lition  doctrine  which  I  am  bound  to  condemn,  in  order  that  the  line 
may  be  distinctly  drawn  between  them.  This  doctrine  rests  upon 
the  wild  and  unscriptural  assumption  that  it  is  a  SIN  in  the  sight  of 
heaven  to  hold  a  human  being  in  bondage  under  any  circumstances — 
that  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  is  utterly  abhorrent  to  the 
principles  of  Christianity— that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
which  gives  protection  to  the  slaveholder  and  grants  a  right  of  suf 
frage  based  on  the  slave  population  of  the  South,  is  "  a  covenant 
with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell" — that  there  is  a  "higher 
law"  of  humanity  which  justifies  the  citizen  in  rebelling  against  the 
"  supreme  law  of  the  land"  with  respect  to  fugitives— that  slavehold- 
ing  is  equivalent  to  man-stealing,  which  the  Jewish  code  pronounced 
to  be  worthy  of  death— that  the  Union  can  not  and  ought  not  to  be 
restored  until  slavery  is  entirely  abolished— that  it  is,  finally,  the 
"  sum  of  all  villainies,"  or,  to  use  the  language  of  Dr.  Adam  Clarke, 
the  Methodist  commentator,  that  "  although  in  heathen  countries 
slavery  was  in  some  sort  excusable,  yet  among  Christians  it  is  an 
ENORMITY  AND  A  CRIME,  for  which  perdition  has  scarcely  an  adequate 
state  of  punishment"* 

Now  the  whole  of  this  modern  and  monstrous  doctrine  I  utterly 
repudiate,  as  at  war  with  the  laws  of  God  and  man.  You  know  as 
well  as  I  do,  that  it  is  a  pure  novelty,  unheard  of  while  you  were  the 
Rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  Boston.  You  know  that,  when  it  was 
first  broached,  it  met  with  the  general  disapprobation  of  all  intelligent 
men,  as  a  weak  delusion.  Unhappily  it  is  no  longer  a  weak  delusion. 
On  the  contrary,  it  has  become  a  strong  one — too  strong  in  the  minds 
of  many,  for  the  old  system  of  Christian  faith  and  practice— too 
strong  for  the  conservative  maxims  of  the  Church — too  strong  for 

constitutional  law,  for  the  oath  of  office,  and  for  the  political  bond 

• 
•. 

*  Com.  on  Ephesians,  ch.  6,  v.  5. 


54:  POSITION  OF  THE  AUTHOE. 

of  Union.  But  I  hold  it  to  be  no  less  a  delusion.  As  such  I  have 
opposed  it  again  and  again.  And  because  I  have  done  this,  in  the 
service  of  truth  and  peace — because  I  have  presumed  to  stand  fast 
upon  the  rock  of  faith  in  the  Word  of  God,  as  it  was  interpreted  by 
the  whole  Church  from  the  beginning  up  to  our  own  day,  and  thus 
reasserted  what  all  men  acknowledged  at  the  time  when  you  were 
ordained,  you,  and  a  majority  of  your  clergy,  have  publicly  stigma 
tized  my  work  as  "  unworthy  of  any  servant  of  Christ,"  and  con 
demned  it  by  your  sentence  of  "indignant  reprobation." 

To  myself,  this  extraordinary  fulmination  is  a  very  small  matter. 
To  the  cause  of  truth,  it  may  prove  to  be  a  great  one.  Manifest,  in 
deed,  it  is,  that  it  destroys  all  the  old  fellowship  between  you  and  me. 
It  is  an  act  of  such  plain  disorder,  nay,  such  gross  and  wanton  insult, 
that  I  hold  myself  bound,  by  the  precept  of  the  Apostle,  to  withdraw 
from  your  "  company,"  though  I  am  also  bound  not  to  "  count  you 
as  an  enemy,  but  to  admonish  you  as  a  brother."*  I  address  this 
volume  to  you,  therefore,  as  a  brotherly  admonition.  I  do  it  in  this 
public  form,  because  your  libellous  act  of  censure  was  public,  print 
ed  for  public  use,  and  scattered  over  the  land  in  large  placards  to 
attract  universal  observation.  I  do  it  at  considerable  length,  because 
I  shall  be  obliged  to  maintain  my  course  by  the  quotation  of  many 
authorities,  which  neither  you  nor  any  other  man  can  justly  impeach, 
and  I  do  it  in  humble  confidence  that  if  it  fails  to  bring  you  back  to 
the  truth  which  you  once  professed  as  I  did,  it  may  nevertheless  be 
of  service  to  the  Church,  and  keep  candid  and  intelligent  minds  from 
the  infection  of  this  mischievous  and  growing  error. 

I  trust,  however,  that  in  thus  vindicating  my  own  course,  I  shall 
say  nothing  which  can  intimate  that  I  "count  you  as  an  enemy." 
You  have  done  me  a  grievous  wrong.  You  and  your  clergy  have 
laid  yourselves  open  to  a  prosecution  for  a  libel.  It  was  certainly 
competent  for  you  to  publish  the  fact  that  you  did  not  approve  my 
little  tract  on  the  Bible  View  of  Slavery,  and  were  not  to  be  held 
accountable  for  it.  But  you  had  no  right  to  accuse  me  of  an  "  effort 
to  sustain,  on  Bible  principles,  the  States  in  rebellion  against  the 
Government  in  the  wicked  attempt  to  establish,  by  force  of  arms,  a 
tyranny  in  the  name  of  a  republic,  whose  *  corner  stone '  shall  be  the 

perpetual  bondage  of  the  African''     Not  one  word  had  I  written  to 

• 

*  2  Thes.  ch.  3,  v.  14-5. 


POSITION   OF  THE  AUTHOR.  55 

justify  this  false  and  baseless  imputation.  On  the  contrary,  I  had 
published  more  than  you  and  all  your  clergy  put  together,  against 
the  idea  of  the  "perpetual  bondage  of  the  African,"  and  in  favor  of  a 
gradual  abolition  of  slavery,  as  soon  as  it  could  be  done,  in  peace 
and  good  will,  with  due  regard  to  the  best  interests  of  the  parties. 
And  as  to  rebellion,  I  have  always  been  opposed  to  every  thing 
which  deserves  the  name,  in  the  family,  in  the  Church,  in  the  State, 
or  in  any  other  relation  of  society.  The  apostles  commanded  obedi 
ence,  not  only  to  the  slave,  but  to  the  child,  to  the  wife,  and  to  every 
subject  of  earthly  government.  "  Submit  yourselves  to  every  ordi 
nance  of  man,  for  the  Lord's  sake,"  *  saith  the  Apostle  Peter.  "  Let 
every  soul  be  subject  to  the  higher  powers,"  f  saith  St.  Paul.  And 
on  this  very  ground  I  abjured  the  doctrine  of  the  ultra-abolitionist, 
who  tramples  "the  supreme  law  of  the  land"  under  his  feet,  in  pur 
suance  of  a  "  higher  law"  which  merely  Exists  in  his  own  imagina 
tion,  and  therefore  not  only  sins  against  the  Word  "of  God,  but  rebels, 
both  in  word  and  act,  against  the  Constitution  of  his  country. 

Tn  publicly  branding  my  name  with  this  utterly  groundless  charge, 
in  condemning  my  course  as  "  unworthy  of  any  servant  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  and  in  affixing  to  it  the  sentence  of  your  "  indignant  repro 
bation,"  you  have,  I  repeat,  done  me  a  grievous  wrong,  and  have 
yourself  "rebelled"  against  the  precepts  of  justice,  fairness,  and 
Christian  courtesy.  Nevertheless,  I  do  not  "  count  you  as  an  ene 
my,"  though  you  have  done  the  work  of  one.  I  believe  that  you 
acted  mainly  under  the  strong  influence  of  political  expediency.  For 
it  so  happened  that  my  pamphlet,  though  never  written  or  intended 
by  me  for  such  a  purpose,  was  largely  circulated  by  the  Democratic 
party  on  the  eve  of  your  late  election  in  Pennsylvania,  and  you 
thought  it  necessary  to  put  it  down.  You  did  not  pause  to  inquire 
how  far  I  was  accountable.  Yet  the  fact  is,  that  I  have  never  med 
dled,  directly  or  indirectly,  with  party  politics,  never  gave  a  party 
vote  in  my  life,  never  made  a  speech  at  a  party  political  meeting, 
never  wrote  a  line  for  party  purposes,  and  never  attended  the  polls 
at  all  since  I  entered  the  ministry,  forty  years  ago.  But  if  gentle 
men  of  any  party  saw  fit  to  attach  importance  to  that  pamphlet,  and 
to  circulate  it,  they  were  at  full  liberty  to  do  so,  because  it  was  pub 
lic  property,  not  subject  to  copyright,  and  I  could  not  have  objected, 

*1  Pet.  2:13.  t  Rom.  18:  1,  2. 


56  POSITION"  OF  THE  AUTHOR. 

with  any  consistency.  There  was  nothing  in  it  bearing  upon  party 
politics,  unless  it  be  supposed  that  your  Union  party  in  Pennsyl 
vania  are  ultra-abolitionists,  which  they  do  not  profess  to  be.  My 
only  object  in  writing  it  was  to  show  the  error  of  those  mistaken 
philanthropists,  by  exhibiting  the  Bible  view  of  slavery,  in  vindica 
tion  of  that  Federal  Constitution  which  is  binding  alike  on  clergy 
men  and  politicians,  and  to  which,  therefore,  I  owed  my  allegiance 
in  common  with  every  other  citizen.  And  hence  it  was  not  only  un 
just,  but  utterly  preposterous,  to  make  me  accountable  for  the  man 
agement  of  a  party  movement,  and  that,  not  in  my  own  State  of 
Vermont,  but  in  Pennsylvania,  four  hundred  miles  away. 

But  you  paid  no  regard  to  these  considerations.  The  pamphlet 
was  there.  It  was  circulated.  It  was  read.  Some  of  your  wise  men 
thought  it  was  politically  expedient  to  kill  it,  if  possible.  The  best 
way  to  kill  it  was  to  brand  and  calumniate  the  author.  And  the  most 
effectual  mode  of  doing  that  was  to  induce  the  Bishop  and  clergy  of 
Philadelphia  to  take  the  lead  in  the  patriotic  work  of  personal  de 
famation. 

I  acquit  you,  in  my  own  mind,  of  originating  this  remarkable  spe 
cimen  of  party  tactics.  I  doubt  not  that  the  suggestion  came  from 
the  sagacious  brain  of  some  experienced  politician,  that  it  was  em 
braced  by  a  few  of  your  astute  clergy,  and  that  you  were  persuaded, 
by  the  arguments  of  political  expediency,  to  place  your  name  and 
official  influence  at  the  head  of  the  extraordinary  manifesto.  What 
signified  the  injury  to  the  Bishop  of  Vermont  ?  A  man  of  little  im 
portance,  set  over  a  small  diocese,  on  the  border  of  Canada !  Penn 
sylvania  contains  nine  times  as  many  people  as  Vermont.  Therefore, 
her  bishop  was  nine  times  the  greater  bishop.  The  influence  which 
he  might  secure  to  the  Church,  by  contributing  to  a  grand  political  suc 
cess,  was  worth  the  sacrifice  of  nine  small  bishops  at  any  time.  True, 
it  would  be  necessary  to  indorse  a  calumny,  but  in  the  game  of  poli 
tics,  all  calumny  is  lawful,  and  slander  itself  becomes  a  duty,  when 
clergymen  can  persuade  themselves  to  think  that  they  are  governed 
by  devotion  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church  and  of  their  country. 
It  was  only  an  adoption  of  the  Jesuitical  maxim,  that  "  the  end  sanc 
tifies  the  means." 

But  I  must  go  a  little  farther,  before  I  have  done  with  your  act  of 
denunciation.  For  while  I  utterly  deny  that  I  either  wrote  my 
pamphlet  for  the  service  of  any  political  party,  or  gave  my  consent 


POSITION  OF  THE  AUTHOR.  57 

to  the  publication  of  the  Bible  View  of  Slavery  under  an  expecta 
tion,  at  the  time,  that  it  would  be  used  by  any  such  party,  yet  I  do 
not  mean  to  admit  that  it  is  wrong  in  a  bishop  or  clergyman  to  pub 
lish  apolitical  tract,  if  he  sees  occasion.  We  have,  indeed,  no  justi 
fication  for  bringing  politics  into  the  sanctuary  of  God,  or  the  con 
ventions  of  the  Church,  because  there  our  duty  is  to  preach  the  Gos 
pel,  and  attend  to  the  work  of  that  spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ,  which 
is  "not  of  this  world."  But  we  do  not  cease  to  be  citizens  when  we 
become  clergymen.  "We  have  still  as  much  right  to  think,  to  speak, 
and  to  publish  our  opinions  upon  all  other  subjects,  as  any  educated 
class  in  the  community.  No  one  presumes  to  doubt  that  a  bishop 
has  a  right  to  vote,  as  your  venerated  predecessor,  Bishop  White, 
always  did,  at  every  party  election.  And  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  a 
man  shall  have  a  right  to  vote,  and  yet  not  have  a  right  to  proclaim  liis 
reasons  for  voting,  which  reasons  never  can  be  proclaimed  without 
more  or  less  of  political  discussion. 

In  England,  as  you  know,  bishops  sit  in  the  House  of  Lords  ;  and 
although  they  usually  decline  acting  in  matters  of  war,  yet  they  take 
a  part  in  all  other  political  questions.  They  do  this,  too,  as  Mskops, 
clothed  in  their  episcopal  robes ;  and  if  an  American  were  to  de 
nounce  their  conduct  as  "  unworthy  of  any  servant  of  Jesus  Christ," 
he  would  be  thought  strangely  deficient  in  wisdom  and  discretion. 
Nevertheless,  while  they  act  as  politicians  in  the  proper  place,  they 
would  utterly  condemn,  as  I-  do,  the  introduction  of  politics  in  the 
Church  or  the  Convocation. 

In  our  country,  the  Church  and  the  State  are  entirely  disconnected, 
and  we  have  no  official  rank  in  the  legislatures  of  the  land.  But  we 
belong  none  the  less  to  the  Sovereign  People,  and  no  act  which 
would  be  morally  right  in  the  layman  can  be  morally  wrong  in  the 
bishop.  Hence  I  contend  that  so  long  as  a  bishop  does  nothing  but 
what  it  is  lawful  for  every  one  else  to  do,  his  conduct  can  not  be  con 
demned  as  "  unworthy  of  any  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  deserv 
ing  of  "  indignant  reprobation." 

I  say,  therefore,  distinctly,  that  I  have  not  lost,  by  reason  of  my 
office  as  bishop,  my  right  as  a  citizen,  not  merely  to  permit  a  polit 
ical  party  to  circulate  one  of  my  pamphlets,  but  to  join  that  party,  to 
write  for  that  party,  and  to  vote  as  a  member  of  that  party  if  I  please, 
because  every  other  Christian  man  has  those  rights,  and  my  rights, 
as  a  citizen,  are  precisely  the  same.  Dignity,  delicacy,  and  propriety, 


58  POSITION  OF  THE  AUTHOR. 

may  stand  in  the  way  of  certain  modes  and  customs,  with  regard  to 
the  exercise  of  those  rights,  and  a  judicious  clergyman  will  always 
pay  respect  to  those  considerations,  lest  his  character  as  a  minister 
might  be  injured  by  too  free  a  use  of  his  political  liberty  as  a  citizen. 
"All  things  are  lawful  for  me,"  saith  the  Apostle,  "  but  all  things  are 
not  expedient."  But  a  deviation  from  the  rules  of  expediency  would 
not  justify  any  one  in  denouncing  such  departure  as  "unworthy  of 
any  servant  of  Jtsus  Christ,"  and  challenging  "indignant  reproba- 
/tion"  Such  language  can  only  be  justly  applied  to  offenses  of  a 
deep  dye,  against  the  moral  law  ;  and  hence  you  stand  chargeable 
not  only  with  injustice,  but  with  absurdity,  in  affixing  it,  as  you 
have  done,  to  my  pamphlet  against  ultra-abolitionism. 

If  you  meant  what  you  say,  in  condemning  my  conduct  as  "un 
worthy  of  any  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,"  consistency  would  require 
you  to  regard  me  as  utterly  unworthy  to  be  a  bishop,  and  therefore 
it  would  become  your  solemn  duty  to  proceed,  according  to  the  can 
ons,  to  have  me  regularly  presented  for  trial,  and  deposed  as  soon 
as  possible.  But  this,  I  presume,  you  will  hardly  undertake.  The 
gross  libel  which  you  have  published,  with  your  long  array  of  cleri 
cal  indorsements,  was  for  political  effect,  and  you  have  probably  no 
desire  to  carry  it  any  farther.  You  are  mistaken,  nevertheless,  it 
you  suppose  that  you  can  stand  excused  for  this  insulting  aggression 
by  the  calm  and  sober  judgment  of  any  Christian  community.  And 
the  time-  will  come,  if  I  do  not  greatly  err,  when  you  and  your  clergy 
will  feel  ashamed  of  your  false  and  violent  accusation,  and  wish  that 
the  record  could  be  blotted  out  forever. 

There  is  one  petty  cavil,  however,  which  is  urged  by  some  of  your 
apologists,  namely,  that  I  signed  my  name  to  the  Bible  View  of  Slav 
ery,  with  my  title  as  Bishop  of  Vermont  attached,  and  therefore  it  is 
said  that  in  consenting  to  its  circulation  in  your  diocese,  I  was  at  once 
invading  your  jurisdiction,  and  undertaking  to  represent  the  opinions 
of  the  Church  at  large,  without  authority. 

To  this  I  reply  that  the  course  which  I  pursued  was  no  invasion  of 
your  diocese,  because  it  was  not  an  act  of  episcopal  authority.  It  is 
true,  indeed,  that  the  letter  of  request  was  addressed  to  me  as  a  bishop, 
and  that  I  replied  to  it  as  a  bishop.  But  the  same  inquiry  might 
have  been  made  of  any  one  else,  and  the  same  answer  might  have 
been  given  by  a  presbyter  or  a  layman,  for  it  only  involved  the  ex 
pression  of  individual  opinion.  Nothing  is  better  understood  than 


POSITION   OF  THE   AUTHOR.  59 

the  rule  that  an  official  title  does  not  imply  an  official  act,  unless  the 
act  be  of  an  official  character.  Thus  I  have  before  me  the  Treatise 
on  the  Records  of  Creation,  written  by  the  Rev.  John  Bird  Sumner, 
and  published  some  time  before  he  was  elevated  to  the,  episcopate. 
Yet  in  the  title-page  to  the  fifth  edition  the  author  is  stated  to  be 
"  John  Bird  Sumner,  D.D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Chester."  So  I  find  that 
a  work  on  topics  which  were  purely  secular,  viz.  "On  Secondary 
Punishments,  on  Transportation  to  New  South-  Wales,  and  on  Col 
onization,  was  published  by  "Richard  Whately,  D.D.,  Archbishop  of 
Dublin.'''1  Did  any  man  ever  suppose  that  this  addition  of  the  title 
gave  any  official  character  to  the  books  themselves  ?  Nay,  so  far  is 
this  practice  carried  in  England,  that  the  title  is  never  dropped  even 
in  private  correspondence.  You  know  as  well  as  I  do  that  John  Can- 
tuar.  signifies  John,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  Richard,  Dublin. 
signifies  Richard,  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  and  Henry,  Exon.  signifies 
Henry,  Archbishop  of  Exeter,  etc.,  precisely  equivalent  to  my  signa 
ture  of  J.  H.  Hopkins,  Bishop  of  Vermont.  And  yet  the  English  and 
colonial  bishops  use  this  official  title  in  all  their  notes  and  letters, 
without  exception.  But  does  this  stamp  them  with'  the  assumption 
of  any  official  authority  ?  The  notion  is  a  pure  absurdity.  In  all 
such  cases  the  title  is  used  merely  to  designate  the  individual.  And 
the  attempt  to  make  any  thing  more  of  it,  in  the  present  instance,  is 
only  a  proof  that  the  cause  must  be  weak  indeed,  which  seeks  sup 
port  from  such  a  trifling  cavil. 

Independently  of  this,  however,  there  is  a  strange  degree  of  folly 
in  supposing  that  the  writings  of  a  bishop  are  to  be  confined  to  his 
own  diocese,  while  those  of  every  other  author  are  free  to  be  circulated 
wherever  they  can  find  readers.  The  laity  of  the  Church  in  Penn 
sylvania  are,  to  a  certain  extent,  under  your  jurisdiction,  while  I  am 
not.  Would  you  tell  them  that  they  must  aslc  your  leave,  before  they 
seek  for  instruction  from  any  other  quarter  ?  And  must  I  obtain 
your  imprimatur  before  I  exercise  the  right  of  the  humblest  citizen, 
to  publish  what  I  believe  to  be  the  truth,  and  send  it  forth  for  general 
information  ? 

With  respect  to  the  other  part  of  the  accusation,  viz.  that  by  sign 
ing  my  name  as  a  bishop,  I  undertook  to  represent  the  Church  at 
large,  I  reply  that  no  individual  bishop  can  represent  the  Church  at 
large  in  any  other  sense  than  that  which  attaches  to  every  presbyter, 
deacon,  and  even  layman,  namely,  that  we  are  all  bound  to  speak  and 


60  POSITION   OF  THE   AUTHOR. 

to  write  nothing  but  what  agrees  with,  or  at  least  what  does  not  stand 
opposed  to,  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  to  which  we  belong.  But  be 
yond  this  general  obligation  to  be  faithful  to  the  Church,  which  rests 
on  all  her  officers  and  members,  my  pamphlet  assumed  nothing.  I 
asserted  in  it  that  the  Church  at  large  had  always  held  the  same  doc 
trine  on  the  lawfulness  of  slavery,  considered  in  itself,  and  that  the 
tin,  if  there  were  any,  consisted  not  in  the  relation  of  master  and 
slave,  but  in  the  treatment.  And  this  assertion  I  now  undertake  to 
prove  by  indisputable  authority. 

But  resuming  my  hypothesis  in  accounting  for  your  extraordinary 
manifesto,  I  would  merely  add  that  I  can  not  conceive  any  better  way 
of  explaining  my  conclusion.  I  regard  you,  therefore,  not  as  a  per 
sonal  enemy  so  much  as  an  able  performer,  brought  upon  the  stage 
to  give  due  effect  to  the  designs  of  the  politicians.  I  can  not  justify, 
but  I  shall  do  my  utmost  to  palliate  your  error.  I  confess  all  the 
superiority  which  you  may  claim  over  myself  in  talents,  influence, 
reputation,  management,  and  tact.  I  am  perfectly  conscious,  also,  of 
your  superiority  in  position,  and  I  am  well  aware  that  the  world  at 
large  pays  more  regard  to  that  fact  than  to  any  other,  in  estimating 
the  comparative  importance  of  human  opinion.  It  has  been  always, 
and  I  suppose  it  will  always  be,  that  the  multitude  bow  down  to  offi 
cial  eminence,  and  would  gladly  render  to  Silenus  on  a  pedestal,  the 
honor  which  they  would  refuse  to  Apollo  in  the  dust.  I  take,  there 
fore,  the  most  favorable  view  of  the  probable  circumstances.  Doubt 
less  you  were  beset  with  importunity.  Doubtless  the  importance  of 
your  influence  in  Church  and  State  was  urged  adroitly,  and  you 
yielded  to  the  pressure.  Your  motive  was  not  specially  to  act  as  my 
enemy,  but  to  follow  what  you  deemed  to  be  the  rule  of  political  ex 
pediency.  The  wrong  is  done.  And  it  is  a  grievous  wrong,  excuse 
it  as  we  may.  May  God  forgive  it,  as  I  most  freely  do,  notwithstand 
ing  the  personal  results  which  I  presume  to  be  irreparable. 


DUTY  OF   CONTROVERSY.  61 


CHAPTER   II. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  I  do  not  know  precisely  where  you 
stand  on  the  field  of  this  very  serious  controversy ;  for  MThile  you 
have  assaulted  my  position  with  unexampled  severity,  you  have  thus 
far  preferred,  for  yourself,  the  policy  of  non-committal.  That  is  a 
kind  of  policy,  however,  which  I  have  not  worldly  wisdom  enough 
to  admire,  in  questions  of  religious  truth  and  duty,  I  have  always 
regarded  it  as  a  solemn  obligation  to  "  contend  for  the  faith  once  de 
livered  to  the  saints,"  and  to  do  what  I  could,  in  my  humble  sphere, 
to  "  drive  away  from  the  Church  all  erroneous  and  false  doctrine, 
contrary  to  the  VYord  of  God."  Whether  "in  honor  or  in  dishonor, 
through  evil  report  or  good  report,"  I  have  held  my  duty  to  be  the 
same.  For  I  know,  and  you  know,  that  this  was  the  rule  laid  down 
to  the  Apostles  by  their  Divine  Lord  and  Master,  and  faithfully  pur 
sued  by  them,  in  despite  of  danger  and  suffering,  till  they  finished 
their  glorious  course  by  gaining  the  crown  of  martyrdom.  If  they 
had  adopted  the  time-serving  policy  of  the  present  day,  the  Church 
of  Christ  could  never  have  been  planted  in  the  face  of  heathen  and 
Jewish  opposition.  This  is  the  reason,  and  the  only  reason,  why  I 
"have  always  been  ready  to  bear  my  part  in  every  controversy  which 
involved  religious  principle.  In  worldly  matters,  where  my  own 
personal  interest  was  alone  concerned,  I  have  willingly  yielded  rny 
rights  sooner  than  contend  in  the  service  of  Mammon.  But  in  the 
service  of  Christ  and  his  Church  I  have  considered  myself  a  "sol 
dier,"  enlisted  for  life  in  His  warfare  "against  sin,  the  world,  and 
the  devil."  And  this,  which  the  baptismal  office  makes  the  duty  of 
every  Christian,  becomes  ten-fold  the  duty  of  a  bishop,  whose  office 
calls  him  to  be  one  of  the  chief  leaders  in  the  host  of  God's  elect,  to 
defend  with  honest  boldness  the  sacred  cause  of  religious  truth  against 
every  assault  of  opposing  error. 

I  am  quite  aware  that  this  was  not  the  way  to  popularity.  If  I 
could  conscientiously  have  held  my  peace  on  all  disputed  questions, 


62  DUTY  OF  CONTROVERSY. 

I  should  have  been  deemed  a  far  wiser  man  in  the  general  opinion. 
But  I  thank  our  divine  Redeemer  for  making  me  willing  to  be  called 
a  fool,  when  I  abandoned  my  prosperous  profession  of  the  law  for  the 
poor  vocation  of  the  ministry.  I  thank  Him  who  has  enabled  me  to 
defend  His  truth  without  regard  to  odium  and  abuse.  I  thank  Him 
who  taught  me  to  follow,  in  my  weakness,  that  eminent  Apostle  who 
was  also  called  a  fool,  and  to  adopt  his  noble  declaration  :  "  With  me 
it  is  a  small  thing  to  be  judged  of  you,  or  of  man's  judgment — He  that 
judgeth  me  is  the  Lord."  I  thank  Him  who  showed  me  that  it  was 
not  my  duty  to  be  popular,  but  that  it  was  my  duty  to  be  faithful, 
and  to  prove,  on  all  .occasions  of  religious  controversy,  that  I  did  not 
"  love  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the  praise  of  God." 
t  If  I  should  be  accused  of  "  boasting"  in  this,  which  I  doubt  not 
that  I  shall  be,  I  must  shelter  myself  under  the  example  of  the  same 
Apostle  by  saying  that  "  you  have  compelled  me"  by  your  bitter  and 
groundless  accusation.  Your  theory  of  Christian  duty  is  of  course 
the  same  as  mine.  Your  practice  is  very  different,  for  notwithstand 
ing  your  acknowledged  literary  talents,  you  have  carefully  abstained 
from  taking  the  smallest  public  share  in  any  religious  controversy  to 
this  day  ;  although  you  have  undertaken  to  sit  in  judgment  on  myself 
because  1  presumed  to  repeat  my  former  argument  at  a  time  which 
did  not  suit  your  views  of  political  expediency.  But  I  have  not 
denounced  your  course  of  worldly  wisdom.  I  have  not  murmured 
at  your  success  and  popularity.  I  wish,  on  the  contrary,  to  give  you 
all  the  praise  to  which,  in  many  respects,  you  are  so  justly  entitled. 
Nevertheless,  I  would  not  adopt  your  prudent  abstinence  from  con 
troversy  as  a  rule  for  myself,  if  the  homage  of  the  whole  world  wera 
oifered  as  the  inducement  Rather  would  I  endeavor,  in  the  words 
of  the.  Apostle,  to  "  take  pleasure  in  reproaches  for  Christ's  sake,"* 
so  long  as  I  provoke  them  only  by  an  honest  though  humble  effort 
to  discharge  what  I  esteem  to  be  my  duty. 

The  life  of  our  divine  Redeemer,  from  the  time  when  He  commenc 
ed  His  public  ministry,  was  an  open  and  constant  controversy  against 
all  existing  error.  The  life  of  His  apostles  was  a  life  of  controversy, 
like  that  of  their  Lord  and  Master.  And  therefore  I  claim  the  high 
est  authority  for  rny  poor  efforts  to  obey  the  rule  which  commands 
me  to  follow  their  example.  It  is  not  that  I  esteem  my  trifling  labors 
as  worthy  to  be  named  in  comparison  with  the  stupendous  task 

*  2  Cor.  12  :  10. 


REASONS  FOE  CONTROVERSY.  63 

committed  to  the  inspired  messengers  of  Christ.  God  forbid  !  Yet 
the  obligation  to  imitate  them  is  none  the  less  imperative,  and,  how 
ever  humble  the  performance,  the  spirit  which  animates  it  should  be 
the  same. 

I  should  be  altogether  wanting,  however,  injustice  to  myself,  if  I 
failed  to  state  the  fact,  that  I  have  only  been  induced  to  engage  in 
the  present  controversy  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  religious  truth,  unity, 
and  peace,  in  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  which  I  am  a  mem 
ber.  That  Church  was  extended  South  as  well  as  North.  Its  union, 
as  well  as  the  Union  of  the  States,  was  deeply  involved  in  the  ques 
tion  of  slavery.  The  views  of  ultra-abolitionists,  if  they  prevailed, 
must  break  that  union  asunder,  and  therefore  I  held  myself  bound 
to  raise  my  feeble  voice  against  a  doctrine  which  I  regarded  as  not 
only  false  in  itself,  but  perilous  to  the  Church  and  to  the  nation. 
Alas  !  the  result  which  I  dreaded  has  come  to  pass.  The  unity  of 
the  Church  is  lost.  The  unity  of  the  States  is  invaded.  And  slavery 
still  stands  as  the  cardinal  point  of  separation.  If  ever  the  union  of 
the  Church  is  restored — if  ever  the  Union  of  the  States  is  reestab 
lished,  it  can  only  be,  in  my  humble  judgment,  by  a  return  to  the 
old  and  Scriptural  doctrine,  once  held  alike  by  the  whole  Christian 
community,  that  slavery,  in  itself,  involves  no  sin.  That  the  Gospel 
does  not  require  its  abolition,  but  commands  the  slave  to  be  obedient 
to  the  master,  and  commands  the  master  to  treat  the  slave  with  just 
ice  and  kindness.  That,  nevertheless,  it  is  expedient  and  desirable 
that  slavery  should  be  done  away,  as  soon  as  it  can  be  peaceabty, 
by  common  consent.  That  until  it  pleases  Providence  to  open  the 
way  to  this  happy  consummation,  the  rights  of  the  South  must  be 
respected  according  to  the  Constitution.  That  meanwhile  it  is  our 
religious  as  well  as  our  civil  duty  to  treat  those  rights  with  a  fair  and 
just  allowance,  and  avoid  all  language  and  all  acts  which  can  only 
tend  to  excite  ill-will,  and  provoke  hostility  and  alienation. 

These  were  the  views  of  all  our  Christian  teachers  and  all  our 
eminent  statesmen,  during  the  first  forty  years  of  our  existence  under 
the  Federal  Constitution.  They  continued  to  be  the  views  of  almost 
all,  for  twenty  years  more.  They  were  held  by  our  own  Church, 
without  any  known  exceptions,  up  to  October,  1859,  when  our  Gen 
eral  Convention  met  at  Richmond  under  the  Presidency  of  Bishop 
Meade,  himself  a  slaveholder.  As  to  my  own  position,  I  retain  the 
same  views  still,  with  a  stronger  conviction  than  ever,  because  I  re- 


64  POLITICAL    EXPEDIENCY. 

gard  the  deplorable  events  of  the  last  three  years  to  be  an  awful 
confirmation  of  their  truth.  And  if  you  have  ceased  to  hold  them, 
since  you  have  not  yet  favored  us  with  your  reasons  for  the  change, 
the  best  hypothesis  by  which  I  can  account  for  it,  in  all  Christian 
charity,  must  be  derived  from  your  favorite  maxims  of  political 
expediency. 

And  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  this  political  expediency  is  a  prin 
ciple  of  vast  practical  importance,  although,  not  being  a  politician,  I 
can  not  pretend  to  understand  its  mysteries.  But  I  know  enough 
about  it  to  be  perfectly  aware  that  it  is  like  charity  in  one  respect, 
because  it  "  covers  a  multitude  of  sins."  In  the  tactics  of  the  State, 
the  newspapers  on  all  sides  bear  witness  that  political  expediency 
employs  bribery,  oppression,  partiality,  fraud,  force,  falsehood,  and 
calumny.  Individual  freedom  lies  down  in  willing  slavery  at  the 
feet  of  party  dictation.  Conscience  shuts  her  eyes,  and  goes  to  sleep. 
The  idol  of  power  is  invoked  to  divide  the  spoils,  and  the  mantle  of 
official  honor  is  expected  to  hide  the  body  of  foulness  and  corruption. 

And  when  this  political  expediency  is  admitted  into  the  Church, 
though  its  garment  is  changed  and  its  aspect  is  modified,  to  suit  its 
new  associations,  yet  its  acting  spirit  is  the  same  selfish  love  of  do 
minion,  working  by  the  same  unscrupulous  management  of  party, 
and  descending  to  employ  the  same  instruments  of  false  accusation, 
unfair  influence,  bitter  writing,  and  abusive  tongue.  But  in  one  im 
portant  respect  there  is  a  difference.  The  politicians  in  the  State 
work  in  the  name  of  the  people,  and  are  always  aware  that  they 
must  be  governed  by  the  public  will.  The  politicians  in  the  Church 
work  in  the  name  of  Christ,  while  his  precepts  of  truth  and  right 
eousness  and  brotherly  love  are  ignored  and  forgotten. 

And  therefore  it  is  that  I  have  always  been  opposed  to  party  spirit 
in  the  Church,  because  it  is  one  of  the  most  dangerous  foes  to  Christ 
ian  peace  and  unity.  Therefore  it  is,  that  in  the  Church  I  would 
have  no  place  granted  to  political  expediency.  I  deny  not  that  in 
the  affairs  of  worldly  government,  there  must  be  parties.  I  deny 
not  that  the  object  of  those  parties  is  often  right  and  true.  I  deny 
not  that  the  leaders  of  party  may  be  honest,  patriotic  men,  who  are 
only  bent  on  maintaining  the  real  and  abiding  principles  of  the  pub 
lic  welfare.  Neither  do  I  deny  that  in  the  Church  the  leaders  of 
party  may  be  sincere  and  upright  in  their  intentions,  as  I  presume 
yourself  to  be,  however  I  may  think  that  you  are  grievously  misled 


POLITICAL    EXPEDIENCY.  65 

in  your  recent  action.  But  I  dread  the  introduction  of  political  ex 
pediency  into  the  Church,  because  I  dread  the  effects  of  party  spirit, 
which  must  tend,  in  times  like  these,  to  produce  the  bitterest  strife 
and  the  most  perilous  contention.  You  have  placed  yourself  at  the 
head  of  a  novel  movement,  which,  if  it  succeeds,  will  probably  divide 
the  Church,  as  it  has  divided  so  many  Christian  denominations. 
You  have  not  been  content  with  an  answer  to  my  pamphlet,  in  your 
own  name,  which  would  have  been  perfectly  allowable  ;  but  you  have 
brought  forward  a  small  army  of  your  clergy  to  unite  in  the  condem 
nation  of  a  brother  bishop. :  and  thus  you  have  inaugurated  a  new 
party  on  the  one  side,  which  is  directly  calculated  to  produce  the 
formation  of  a  party  on  the  other.  The  shape  into  which  you  have 
chosen  to  put  the  subject,  therefore,  is  but  too  likely  to  inflame  our 
whole  communion.  And  if  the  mercy  of  God,  and  the  good  sense  of 
the  majority  do  not  control  the  storm,  the  disunion  of  the  Church 
may  add  another  trophy  to  the  victories  of  ultra-abolitionism,  and 
another  testimony  to  the  dangers  which  lurk  in  the  ecclesiastical 
adoption  of  POLITICAL  EXPEDIENCY. 


66  PKOPHECY  OF  NOAH. 


CHAPTER    HI. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BKOTHER  :  I  have  already  said  that  I  do  not  know 
precisely  where  you  stand,  in  this  very  serious  controversy,  but  I 
have  been  favored  with  a  number  of  anonymous  pamphlets,  some  of 
which  claim  the  authorship  of  ministers  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  in  which  my  Bible  View  of  Slavery  is  attacked  with  abun 
dance  of  zeal,  not  always  accompanied  either  by  Christian  courtesy  or 
knowledge.  It  may  be  well,  therefore,  to  occupy  a  little  space  in 
the  examination  of  some  of  their  arguments,  although  it  is  not  my 
custom  to  pay  any  attention  to  anonymous  opponents.  Through  my 
whole  course,  I  have  made  it  a  matter  of  principle  to  publish  nothing 
without  my  name ;  because  I  have  always  held  anonymous  attacks 
on  individuals  to  be  a  sort  of  stabbing  in  the  dark,  belonging,  of 
right,  to  the  art  of  assassination.  The  individual  assailed  has  a  just 
claim  to  know  who  it  is  that  assails  him.  The  public  has  a  just 
claim  to  be  informed  who  it  is  that  undertakes  the  office  of  censor. 
And  there  is  a  lack  of  Christian  manliness  and  honesty  in  this  too 
common  kind  of  cowardly  warfare,  which  wears  a  mask  M7hen  it 
strikes  the  blow,  and  dares  to  incur  the  responsibility  of  the  act, 
while  it  shrinks  from  the  responsibility  of  detection. 

Passing  over,  as  quite  unworthy  of  notice,  the  bitterness  and  sar 
casm  of  those  writers,  I  shall  state  their  arguments  fairly  and  can 
didly,  and  give  them  what  I  deem  a  satisfactory  reply. 

The  first  point  which  I  shall  notice  is  the  assault  made  against  the 
application  of  the  prophecy  of  Noah  to  the  posterity  of  Ham,  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  limited  to  the  offspring  of  Canaan,  who  were  not 
negroes,  and  who  are  now  probably  extinct.  Moreover,  it  is  said 
that  Canaan  was  not  in  Africa,  and  that  the  negroes  are  not  descend 
ed  from  Canaan,  but  from  Cush,  on  whom  there  is  no  curse  recorded. 
And  we  have  a  quotation  given  from  Josephus,  to  prove  the  correct 
ness  of  these  positions. 

In  reply  to  this,  I  have  only  to  observe  that  none  of  these  writers 


NEGROES  IN  AFRICA.  67 

pretend  to  deny  what  I  asserted,  namely,  that  "  the  Almighty,  fore 
seeing  the  total  degradation  of  the  race,  ordained  them  to  servitude 
under  the  descendants  of  Shem  and  Japheth." 

•Now  the  whole  question  in  dispute  is,  whether  the  Bible  author 
izes  slavery  at  all,  under  any  circumstances.  The  ultra-abolitionisfc 
denies  it,  insisting  that  slaveholding  is  a  sin  per  se,  and  pronouncing 
absolute  condemnation  upon  the  act  of  keeping  a  man  in  bondage. 
I  contend,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  Deity  pronounced  the  curse  of 
slavery  on  the  posterity  of  Ham,  "  foreseeing  their  total  degrada 
tion"  and  whether  .that  curse  included  the  whole  of  his  posterity  or 
a  portion  of  them  only,  does  not  make  the  slightest  difference  in  the 
main  fact,  which  remains  uncontroverted,  namely,  that  God  did  au 
thorize  slavery  for  a  race,  whom  he  foresaw  would  be  utterly  de 
graded. 

The  old  maxim  is  a  sound  one  :  "  Uli  eadem  ratio,  ibi  eadem  lex." 
Where  there  is  the  same  reason,  there  is  the  same  law.  It  is  not 
and  it  can  not  be  denied,  that  the  reason  why  the  Canaanites  were  to 
be  enslaved,  was  the  foresight  of  their  total  degradation.  Let  us  look, 
therefore,  at  the  condition  of  the  African  race  in  our  own  days,  as  it 
is  described  by  Malte  Brun,  one  of  the  most  reliable  of  our  modern 
geographers ;  and  then  we  shall  be  enabled  to  judge  whether  the 
same  reason  which  justified  the  slavery  of  the  one,  does  not  equally 
justify  the  slavery  of  the  other. 

"  The  slave  coast  of  Africa,"  saith  this  writer,  "  consists  of  several 
petty  states,  which  are  all  under  the  despotic  sway  of  the  King  of 
Dahomey.  This  barbarian  monarch  chooses  to  have  women  for  his 
body-guard,  and  his  palace  is  surrounded  by  one  thousand  of  these 
Amazons,  armed  with  javelins  and  muskets,  from  whom  he  selects 
his  special  military  aids  and  messengers.  His  ministers,  when  they 
come  into  the  royal  presence,  are  obliged  to  leave  their  silk  robes  at 
the  gate  of  the  palace,  and  approach  the  throne,  walking  on  all  fours, 
and  rolling  their  heads  in  the  dust.  The  ferocity  of  this  African  des 
pot  almost  surpasses  conception.  The  road  to  his  residence  is  strew 
ed  with  human  skulls,  and  the  walls  are  adorned  and  almost  covered 
with  jaw-bones.  On  public  occasions,  the  sable  monarch  walks  in 
solemn  pomp,  over  the  bloody  heads  of  vanquished  princes,  or  dis 
graced  ministers.  At  the  festivals  of  the  tribes,  to  which  all  the 
people  bring  presents  for  the  king,  he  drenches  the  tombs  of  his  fore 
fathers  with  human  blood.  Fifty  dead  bodies  are  thrown  around  the 


68  NEGROES  IX  AFRICA. 

royal  sepulchre,  and  fifty  heads  displayed  on  poles.  The  blood  of 
these  victims  is  presented  to  the  king,  who  dips  his  fingers  into  it, 
and  licks  them.  Human  blood  is  mixed  with  clay,  to  build  temples 
in  honor  of  deceased  monarchs.  The  royal  widows  kill  one  another, 
till  it  pleases  the  new  sovereign  to  put  an  end  to  the  slaughter.  And 
the  crowd  assembled  at  their  most  joyous  festivals  applaud  such 
scenes  of  horror,  and  delight  in  tearing  the  unhappy  victims  to 
pieces."  * 

The  people,  as  might  be  expected,  are  sunk  into  the  most  degraded 
habits,  in  all  the  social  relations  of  life,  and  especially  in  all  their  no- 
'tions  of  religion.  "They  eat  the  carcass  of  the  elephant,"  saith  our 
author,  "  even  when  full  of  vermin.  The  musky  eggs  and  flesh  of 
the  crocodile  are  welcome  to  their  appetite.  Monkeys  are  generally 
used  for  food.  Animals  found  dead  and  putrid  give  no  disgust,  and 
at  their  greatest  feasts,  a  roasted  dog  is  counted  a  luxury.  Their 
dwellings  are  rude  huts,  consisting  of  a  few  trunks  of  trees,  covered 
with  straw  or  palm  leaves.  Their  furniture  is  usually  confined  to  a 
few  calabashes.  The  rich  have  some  fire-arms,  obtained  from  the 
Europeans ;  and  the  sovereigns,  who  adorn  their  residence  with  hu 
man  skulls  and  jaw-bones,  have  stone-ware  and  carpets  of  English 
manufacture.  But  the  mass  look  for  nothing  beyond  the  supply  of 
the  simplest  wants  of  nature.  Twenty  days  in  the  year  are  enough, 
in  that  luxuriant  climate,  for  their  labors  in  husbandry.  Their  cloth 
ing  is  woven  by  the  women  from  wild  cotton.  And  their  time  is  given 
up,  for  the  most  part,  to  dancing  at  night  to  the  sound  of  horns  and 
drums,  and  their  days  to  gaming,  of  which  they  are  passionately  fond. 
Polygamy  is  practiced  to  a  greater  degree  than  is  found  among  any 
Other  people.  As  to  their  religion,  it  is  the  lowest  kind  of  idolatry. 
They  adore,  and  in  time  of  difficulty  consult,  any  object  that  strikes 
their  fancy — a  tree,  a  rock,  a  fish-bone,  an  egg,  a  horn,  a  date-stone, 
or  a  blade  of  grass.  In  Whidah,  a  serpent  is  regarded  as  the  god  of 
war,  of  trade,  of  agriculture,  and  of  fertility.  It  is  kept  in  a  kind  of 
temple,  and  attended  by  an  order  of  priests.  A  company  of  young 
women  are  consecrated  to  it,  whose  business  it  is  to  please  their  deity 
with  wanton  dances,  and  a  life  of  systematic  licentiousness.  In  Be 
nin,  a  lizard  is  the  object  of  public  worship,  and  a  leopard  in  Da- 
homey."t 

*  Malte  Brun's  System  of  Universal  GeograpTi^y.    Vol.  ii.  p.  77.    Boston  ed.  of  18C4. 
fib.  p.  88-9. 


CIVILIZED  IN  THE   SOUTH.  69 

Of  course,  neither  liberty  nor  social  comfort  can  exist,  where  laws 
and  manners  so  barbarous  prevail.  "  Two  thirds  of  the  negro  popu 
lation,"  continues  our  author,  "lead  lives  of  hereditary  bondage  in 
their  own  country,  and  those  who  are  free,  are  liable  to  le  reduced  to  t 
slavery  at  any  moment,  by  the  order  of  their  despots.  As  an  instance 
of  the  awful  tyranny  under  which  they  groan,  it  is  related  that,  on 
the  death  of  Freempoong,  king  of  the  Akims,  the  people  sacrificed 
his  slaves  upon  his  tomb,  to  the  number  of  several  thousands,  to 
gether  with  his  prime-minister,  and  three  hundred  and  sixteen  of  his 
women.  All  these  victims  were  buried  alive,  their  bones  having  been 
previously  broken.  And  for  several  days  the  crowd  performed  dances, 
accompanied  with  songs,  round  the  spot,  where  these  unfortunate 
beings  suffered  lingering  and  horrible  agonies."* 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  best  testimony,  with  which  every  subse 
quent  writer  agrees, t  as  to  the  awful  debasement,  the  groveling  idola 
try,  the  flagitious  immorality,  the  total  degradation  of  the  posterity 
of  Ham,  in  the  slave-region  of  Africa.  And  this  testimony  is  given 
by  the  first  geographer  of  the  age,  who  was,  himself,  a  friend  to  abo 
lition.  If  my  antagonists  can  show  that  the  Canaanites  were  in  a 
worse  condition  than  this,  I  should  like  to  see  the  evidence.  In  the 
Providence  of  God,  the  negro  slavery  of  the  South  has  been  the  means 
of  saving  millions  of  those  poor  creatures  from  the  horrible  state  in 
which  they  must  otherwise  have  lived  and  died.  It  has  raised  them 
on  the  scale  of  humanity,  and  brought  them  toward  civilization  un 
der  the  light  of  religious  truth,  until  a  portion  of  them  were  enabled 
to  establish,  through  Southern  direction,  the  Colony  of  Liberia,  and 
we  have  reason  to  hope  that  many  of  the  rest  may  be  qualified  to 
emulate  them,  in  due  time.  If  any  man  can  seriously  contemplate 
the  awful  debasement  of  the  native  Africans,  and  candidly  compare 
it  with  the  present  condition  of  the  Southern  slaves,  and  then  de 
nounce,  as  a  sin,  the  means  which  divine  Providence  has  chosen  to 
save  them  from  their  former  state  of  wretched  barbarism,  and  delib 
erately  prefer  that  they  should  rather  have  remained  in  that  dark  sink 
of  heathen  cruelty  and  abomination,  in  honor  of  PHILANTHROPY,  I  can 
only  say  that  I  am  at  a  loss  whether  I  should  be  most  astonished  at 
the  waywardness  of  his  heart,  or  the  blindness  of  his  understanding. 

But  my  censors  think  that  they  have  settled  the  whole  application 

*  Malte  Brun's  System  of  Universal  Geography.    Vol.  ii,  p.  90. 
i  See  the  Appendix,  for  some  later  authorities. 


70  BISHOP  NEWTON. 

of  Noah's  prophecy  by  confining  it  to  the  posterity  of  Canaan,  and 
exclaim  against  my  supposed  error  in  extending  it  to  the  posterity  of 
Ham,  or  the  African  generally.  Let  me  therefore  recall  to  the  memory 
of  my  antagonists  the  language  of  Bishop  Newton,  whose  well-known 
work  upon  the  Prophecies  is  on  the  list  selected  by  the  Church  for 
students  in  Theology,  and  must  therefore,  as  I  suppose,  have  been 
once  regarded,  by  some  of  themselves,  as  a  safe  guide  of  ministerial 
opinion, 

"Ham,  the  father  of  Canaan,  is  mentioned,"  saith  Bishop  Newton, 
"in  the  preceding  part  of  the  story,  and  how  then  came  the  person 
of  a  sudden  to  be  changed  into  Canaan  f  The  Arabic  version  in 
these  three  verses  hath  the  father  of  Canaan,  instead  of  Canaan. 
Some  copies  of  the  Septuagint  likewise  have  Ham  instead  of  Canaan, 
as  if  Canaan  was  a  corruption  of  the  text.  Vatablus  and  others,  by 
Canaan,  understand  the  father  of  Canaan,  which  was  expressed 
twice  before.  And  if  we  regard  the  metre,  this  line,  Cursed  oe  Ca 
naan,  is  much  shorter  than  the  rest,  as  if  something  was  deficient. 
May  we  not  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  copyist,  by  mistake,  wrote 
only  Canaan  instead  of  Ham  the  'father  of  Canaan,  and  that  the 
whole  passage  was  originally  thus  ?  *  Cursed  be  Ham  the  father  of 
Canaan,  a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  to  his  brethren.' 

"  By  this  reading,"  continues  Bishop  Newton,  "  all  the  three  sons  of 
Noah  are  included  in  the  prophecy,  whereas  otherwise  Ham,  who  was 
the  offender,  is  excluded,  or  is  only  punished  in  one  of  his  children. 
Ham  is  characterized  as  the  father  of  Canaan  particularly,  for  the 
greater  encouragement  of  the  Israelites,  who  were  going  to  invade  the 
land  of  Canaan  ;  and  when  it  is  said,  '  Cursed  be  Ham,  the  father  of 
Canaan,  a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  to  his  brethren,'  it  is  im 
plied  that  his  whole  race  was  devoted  to  servitude,  but  particularly 
the  Canaanites.  Not  that  this  was  to  take  effect  immediately,  but 
was  to  be  fulfilled  in  process  of  time,  when  they  should  forfeit  their 
liberties  by  their  wickedness.  Ham  at  first  subdued  some  of  the 
posterity  of  Shem,  as  Canaan  sometimes  conquered  Japheth.  The 
Carthaginians,  who  were  originally  Canaanites,  did  particularly  so  in 
Spain  and  Italy ;  but  in  time  they  were  to  be  subdued,  and  to  become 
servants  to  them  and  Japheth ;  and  the  change  of  their  fortune  from 
good  to  bad  would  render  the  curse  still  more  visible.  Egypt  was 
the  land  of  Ham,  as  it  is  often  called  in  Scripture,  and  for  many  years 
it  was  a  great  and  flourishing  kingdom ;  but  it  was  subdued  by  the 


BISHOP  NEWTON.  71 

Persians,  who  descended  from  Shem,  and  afterward  by  the  Grecians, 
who  descended  from  Japheth,  and  from  that  time  to  this,  it  hath  con 
stantly  been  subject  to  some  or  other  of  the  posterity  of  Shem  or  Ja 
pheth.  The  whole  continent  of  Africa  was  peopled  principally  by  the 
children  of  Ham,  and  for  how  many  ages  have  the  better  parts  of  that 
country  lain  under  the  dominion  of  the  Romans,  and  then  of  the 
Saracens,  and  now  of  the  Turks  ?  In  what  wickedness,  ignorance, 
barbarity,  slavery,  and  misery,  lie  most  of  the  inhabitants  ?  In  fine," 
concludes  our  author,  "nothing  can  be  more  complete  than  the  exe 
cution  of  the  sentence  upon  Ham  as  well  as  upon  Canaan"* 

These  extracts  from  the  work  which,  amongst  Episcopalians,  has 
been  held  as  the  best  authority,  may  suffice,  I  trust,  as  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  my  adversaries.  As  to  the  notion  that  the  race  of  Canaan 
is  probably  extinct,  they  have  only  stumbled  a  second  time  against 
Bishop  Newton.  "  The  Greeks  and  Romans,"  saith  this  author  ex 
pressly,  "  who  were  the  descendants  of  Japheth,  not  only  subdued 
Syria  and  Palestine,  but  also  pursued  and  conquered  such  of  the  Ca- 
naanites  as  were  anywhere  remaining,  as,  for  instance,  the  Tyrians 
and  Carthaginians,  the  former  of  whom  were  ruined  by  Alexander 
arid  the  Grecians,  and  the  latter  by  Scipio  and  the  Romans.  And  ever 
since,  the  miserable  remainder  of  this  people  have  been  slaves  to  a 
foreign  yoke,  first  to  the  Saracens,  who  descended  from  Shem,  and 
afterwards  to  the  Turks,  who  descended  from  Japheth,  and  they  groan 
under  their  dominion  at  this  day"\ 

But  some  of  these  modern  theologians  have  discovered  that  Ham 
was  blessed  along  with  the  other  sons  of  Noah,  because  it  is  said 
(Gen.  9  :  1)  that  "  God  blessed  Noah  and  his  sons,"  while,  in  the 
twenty-fifth  verse,  it  is  said  that  Noah  cursed  Canaan,  not  Ham ; 
"God's  blessing  remaining  untouched.  So  reads  the  record." 

Truly  this  is  a  precious  piece  of  Biblical  criticism.  God  "  blessed 
Noah  and  his  sons"  when  they  issued  from  the  ark ;  but  this  was 
several  years  before  Canaan  was  born,  for  it  is  unquestionable  that 
only  eight  souls  were  saved  from  the  deluge — Noah,  his  three  sons, 
and  their  wives.  And  Canaan  was  the  fourth  son  of  Ham,  because 
Cush,  Mizraim,  and  Phut  had  preceded  him.  If  then,  during  those 
years,  Ham  became  disrespectful  and  irreverent  toward  his  father, 

*  Dissertation  on  the  Prophecies,  by  Bishop  Newton.    Vol.  i.  pp.82-1    Phil.  ed.  1818. 
t  Ib.  p.  81. 


72  JOSEPHUS. 

and  trained  his  children  in  a  course  which,  of  all  others,  is  most  hate 
ful  in  the  eyes  of  that  God,  who  commands  that  HONOR  must  be  given 
to  the  father  and  the  mother,  on  what  principle  is  the  Almighty  to  be 
restrained  from  predicting  a  curse  to  his  posterity,  instead  of  the  ori 
ginal  blessing  ?  Were  not  Adam  and  Ere  blessed  in  their  state  of  in 
nocence,  and  yet  did  not  a  curse  follow  their  disobedience  ?  Were 
not  the  Israelites  blessed  repeatedly,  and  yet  does  not  the  prophet 
Malachi  say  :  "  Ye  are  cursed  with  a  curse,  even  this  whole  nation"  ? 
Does  not  every  tyro  in  Christianity  know  that  blessings  and  curses 
are  conditional,  so  that  the  commission  of  sin  can  change  the  blessing 
to  a  curse,  and  the  repentance  and  reformation  of  the  sinner  can 
change  the  curse  into  a  blessing  ?  If  these  anonymous  clergymen  did 
not  know  all  this — if  they  were  capable  of  preaching  to  their  people 
that  a  blessing  once  given  must  remain  "  untouched,"  even  when  a 
malediction  is  deserved  by  subsequent  transgression,  I  should  be 
alarmed  for  their  own  state  of  mind,  and  sorry  for  their  congregations. 
But  this  is  impossible.  Such  doctrine  is  only  admissible  on  special 
occasions  and  for  a  special  purpose ;  as,  for  example,  in  an  assault 
upon  rny  humble  work,  under  the  new  stimulus  of  political  expe 
diency. 

As  to  the  quotation  from  Josephus,  it  does  not  agree  with  the  state 
ment  of  my  antagonists,  but  rather  with  that  of  Bishop  Newton. 
"  Noah  is  described,"  saith  this  historian,  "as  praying  for  prosperity 
to  his  other  sons,  but  for  Ham,  Tie  did  not  curse  him  ly  reason  of  Ids 
nearness  of  blood,  lut  cursed  Ms  posterity,  and  when  the  rest  of  them 
escaped  that  curse,  God  inflicted  it  on  Canaan."  Here  Josephus 
plainly  asserts  that  although  Noah  did  not  curse  Ham  personally  by 
reason  of  his  nearness  of  blood,  yet  he  did  curse  his  posterity.  True, 
he  adds  that  "when  the  rest  of  them  escaped  that  curse,  God  inflicted 
it  on  Canaan,"  evidently  alluding  to  the  fact  that  although  Egypt, 
which  was  preeminently  called  the  land  of  Ham,  had  become  great, 
and  thus  seemed  to  have  escaped  the  curse  for  a  considerable  period, 
yet  it  still  continued  to  operate  in  the  line  of  Canaan.  Josephus  was 
born  A.D.  37,  and  if  he  had  lived  in  our  day,  he  would  have  seen 
abundant  proof  that  the  rest  of  Ham's  posterity  had  not  escaped  at 
all,  but  had  been  sunk  for  centuries  into  the  lowest  state  of  social  and 
moral  degradation. 

For  myself,  however,  the  question  has  little  interest,  because  I  am 
perfectly  satisfied  that  the  posterity  of  Canaan  still  exists  in  Africa,  to 


THE   CANAANITES.  73 

a  vast  extent ;  and  that  the  curse  pronounced  by  Noah  was  not  fulfilled, 
nor  intended  to  be  fulfilled,  by  the  conquest  of  the  Israelites  over  the 
seven  nations  which  occupied  the  promised  land.  Those  seven  na 
tions  were  not  the  whole  of  Canaan's  progeny,  for  we  read  of  his  hav 
ing  eleven  sons,  whose  families  were  "  spread  abroad."  (Gen.  10  : 18.) 
Nor  have  we  any  authority  for  supposing  that  the  whole  of  even  those 
seven  tribes  abandoned  Africa  for  the  land  of  Canaan,  nor  for  doubt 
ing  that  large  numbers  returned  from  Canaan  to  Africa,  in  order  to  es 
cape  the  conquering  sword  of  Joshua,  A  part  only  of  Canaan's  pos 
terity  was  doomed  to  be  exterminated  by  the  divine  command,  while 
a  far  greater  portion  were  to  be  slaves  according  to  the  prophecy. 
This  will  be  made  evident,  however,  in  a  future  chapter 


74  HEBREW  SLAVES. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Proceeding  to  the  cases  of  Abraham, 
Hagar,  and  Ishmael,  my  anonymous  assailants  do  not  pretend  to  deny 
that  Abraham  had  slaves,  but  require  me  to  show  that  the  Deity  sanc 
tions  the  Hnd  of  slavery  in  which  negroes  are  held  at  the  South,  and 
boldly  assert  that  the  case  of  Ishmael  proves  the  children  of  a  slave 
to  be  free,  and  their  mother,  under  the  circumstances  of  Hagar,  to  be 
entitled  to  an  open  acknowledgment  as  the  wife  of  the  master. 

In  my  pamphlet  I  defined  slavery  to  be  "servitude  for  life,  descend 
ing  to  the  offspring."  This  constitutes  the  relation  between  the  mas 
ter  and  the^lave,  and  must  be  considered  independently  of  the  mode 
of  treatment,  which  may  be  good,  bad,  or  indifferent,  according  to 
circumstances.  It  is  the  constant  error  of  the  ultra-abolitionist  to 
confound  these  things  together,  like  the  Free-love  disorganizers, 
who  rake  up  all  the  cases  of  tyrannical  abuse  in  the  relation  of  mar 
ried  life,  and  then  modestly  recommend  mankind  to  abolish  matri 
mony  on  account  of  its  liability  to  those  abuses.  But  I  have  nothing 
to  do,  in  my  argument,  with  the  abuses  of  slavery.  I  condemn  them 
as  heartily  as  any  one.  What  I  insist  on  is  that  the  Almighty  sanc 
tions  the  relation  of  master  and  slave.  And  I  am  equally  ready  to 
insist  that  while,  in  the  language  of  the  Apostle,  the  slave  is  com 
manded  to  "  obey  his  master,"  the  master  is  also  commanded  to 
"  render  to  the  slave  what  is  just  and  equal,  remembering  that  he  also 
has  a  Master  in  heaven." 

"  The  Hebrews,"  saith  Cruden  in  his  Concordance,  a  work  in  uni 
versal  use  by  all  Protestant  clergymen,  "  had  two  sorts  of  servants  or 
slaves.  Some  were  strangers,  either  bought  or  taken  in  the  wars, 
and  their  masters  kept  them,  exchanged  them,  sold  them,  or  disposed 
of  them  as  their  own  goods.  (Lev.  25,  44,  45,  etc.)  The  others  were 
Hebrew  slaves,  who  being  poor,  sold  themselves  or  were  sold  to  pay 
their  debts,  or  were  delivered  up  for  slaves  by  their  parents,  in  case 
of  necessity.  This  sort  of  Hebrew  slaves  continued  in  slavery  but 


HAGAR  AND  ISHMAEL.  75 

six  years,  then  they  might  return  to  liberty  again,  and  their  masters 
could  not  retain  them  against  their  wills.  If  they  would  continue 
voluntarily  with  their  masters,  they  were  brought  before  the  judges  ; 
there  they  made  a  declaration  that  for  this  time  they  disclaimed  the 
privilege  of  the  law,  had  their  ears  bored  with  an  awl  by  applying  to 
the  door-posts  of  their  master,  and  after  that  they  had  no  longer  any 
power  of  recovering  their  liberty  except  at  the  next  year  of  Jubilee." 

These  were  the  only  kinds  of  slavery  known  to  the  people  of  Israel, 
and  it  can  not  be  pretended  that  Hagar  was  a  slave  in  any  other  sense 
than  that  of  a  "  stranger,"  because  she  was  an  Egyptian,  one  of  tho 
race  of  Ham.  But  it  may  be  well  to  quote  the  whole  of  the  Scrip 
tural  narrative,  for  my  reader's  satisfaction:  "And  Sarai  said  unto 
Abram,  Behold  now,  the  Lord  hath  restrained  me  from  bearing :  I 
pray  thee  go  in  unto  my  maid,  it  may  be  that  I  may  obtain  children 
ly  her.  And  Abram  hearkened  to  the  voice  of  Sarai."  (Gen.  16  :  2.) 
Here  it  is  perfectly  manifest  that  the  offspring  was  intended  to 
be  accounted  as  Sarai's,  and  not  Hagar' s,  the  right  of  the  mistress 
"over  the  slave  continuing  precisely  as  it  was  before.  It  appears, 
however,  that  Hagar  became  proud  and  insolent  under  her  new  dig 
nity.  And  then  we  read  that  "  Abram  said  unto  Sarai,  Behold,  thy 
maid  is  in  thy  hand,  do  to  her  as  it  pleaseth  thee.  And  when  Sarai 
dealt  hardly  with  her,  she  fled  from  her  face.  And  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  found  her  by  a  fountain  of  water  in  the  wilderness — and  he 
said,  Hagar,  Sarai! s  maid,  Whence  comest  thou,  and  whither  wilt 
thou  go  ?  And  she  said,  I  flee  from  the  face  of  my  mistress  Sarai. 
And  the  angel  of  the  Lord  said  unto  her,  Return  to  thy  mistress, 
and  submit  thyself  under  her  hands"  (Gen.  16  :  6-9.) 

We  read  next  that  after  Hagar  had  borne  Ishmael,  God  changed 
the  name  of  Abram  to  Abraham,  and  the  name  of  Sarai  to  Sarah, 
promising  that  she  should  bear  Isaac,  with  whose  seed  the  covenant 
of  grace  should  be  made  to  all  generations.  Isaac  was  born  accord 
ingly,  and  "  Abraham  made  a  great  feast  the  same  day  that  Isaac 
was  weaned.  And  Sarah  saw  the  son  of  Hagar  the  Egyptian,  which 
she  had  borne  unto  Abraham,  mocking.  Wherefore  she  said  unto 
Abraham,  Cast  out  this  bondwoman  and  her  son,  for  the  son  of  this 
bondwoman  shall  not  be  heir  with  my  son,  even  with  Isaac.  And 
the  thing  was  very  grievous  in  Abraham's  sight,  because  of  his  son. 
And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  Let  it  not  be  grievous  in  thy  sight, 
because  of  the  lad,  and  because  of  thy  bondwoman :  in  all  that  Sarah 


ib  HAGAR  AND  ISHMAEL. 

hath  said,  hearken  unto  her  voice  ;  for  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be 
called.  And  also  of  the  son  of  the  bondwoman  will  I  make  a  nation, 
because  he  is  thy  seed.  And  Abraham  rose  up  early  in  the  morn 
ing,  and  took  bread  and  a  bottle  of  water,  and  gave  it  unto  Hagar, 
and  the  child,  and  sent  her  away,  and  she  departed."  (Gen.  21 : 
8-14.) 

Here  is  the  whole  of  the  sacred  narrative,  and  it  is  plain  that  Ha 
gar,  from  first  to  last,  continued  to  be  a  slave,  until  she  was  sent 
away,  or  manumitted.  The  word  "  wife"  is  indeed  applied  to  her 
once,  where  it  is  said  that  Sarai  gave  her  to  her  husband  to  be  his 
wife"  (Gen.  16  :  3  ;)  but  everywhere  else  she  is  called  a  bondwoman, 
and  specially  is  she  so  called  by  the  angel,  and  by  the  Lord.  It  is 
not  true,  therefore,  as  my  learned  antagonists  assert,  that  she  was 
ever  u  openly  acknowledged"  as  the  wife  of  Abraham.  She  was  only 
a  concubine,  and  that  merely  by  the  will  of  her  mistress.  The  Deity 
everywhere  limits  the  name  of  wife  to  Sarah.  "  Sarah,  thy  wife" 
and  "  Hagar  thy  bondwoman,"  are  the  phrases  constantly  employed. 
Neither  is  it  true  that  this  example  proves  the  right  of  the  children 
of  slaves  to  be  free ;  because  it  is  evident  that  Sarah  did  as  she  pleas 
ed  both  with  the  mother  and  the  son,  expressly  declaring,  from  the 
first,  that  Ishmael  should  be  accounted  as  her  own,  because  she  was 
barren,  yet  finally  casting  him  off,  along  with  Hagar,  when  she  saw 
that  the  envious  feelings  of  the  boy  were  likely  to  endanger  the 
peace  of  the  family. 

The  whole  of  this  sacred  narrative  is  a  peculiar  and  exceptional 
case,  having  no  point  which  is  fairly  applicable  to  the  question  under 
consideration  save  the  principle  of  slavery,  for  which  I  quoted  it. 
The  conduct  of  Sarah  in  giving  her  bondmaid  to  Abraham,  in  order 
that  the  offspring  might  be  counted  for  her  own,  was  afterwards  imi 
tated  by  Rachel  and  Leah,  the  wives  of  Jacob.  But  that  has  no 
connection  with  the  subject  before  us.  The  only  facts  which  do  bear 
upon  the  controversy  are  these :  that  Hagar  was  insubordinate  to 
her  mistress,  that  Sarah  dealt  hardly  with  her  bondwoman,  that 
Hagar  ran  away,  and  that  the  angel  reproved  her,  and  commanded 
that  she  should  "return  to  her  mistress  and  submit  herself  to  her 
hands."  We  see,  therefore,  that  even  under  circumstances  where 
Hagar  seemed  entitled  to  more  than  ordinary  indulgence,  the  rights 
of  the  mistress  and  the  submission  of  the  slave  are  recognized  and 
affirmed  by  "  the  angel  of  the  Lord."  Sarah  is  not  rebuked  for  her 


HAGAR  AND   ISHMAEL.  77 

hard  dealing  with  the  bondmaid,  which  was  probably  no  more  than 
her  disobedient  demeanor  had  deserved ;  but  Hagar  is  sent  ~back 
again,  with  a  wholesome  exhortation  to  keep  her  proper  place,  and 
do  her  duty. 

Some  of  my  sagacious  adversaries  inform  their  readers  that  "  Re- 
bekah  called  Abraham's  servant,  '  my  lord.'  She  watered  his  camels. 
And  Bethuel  received  that  *  lord'  and  the  men  that  were  with  him, 
into  his  house,  and  treated  them  as  honored  visitors  at  his  own  table." 
Here,  again,  we  have  that  constant  absurdity  which  confounds  the 
occasional  treatment  of  a  slave  with  the  relation  itself.  Suppose 
the  slaves  of  Abraham  were  received  with  generous  hospitality  by 
the  family,  to  whom  they  were  sent,  loaded  with  rich  presents,  to 
propose  a  marriage  for  their  master.  What  then  ?  Did  that  change 
their  relation  as  slaves  to  Abraham  ?  Did  it  affect  their  bounden 
duty  of  submission  to  Isaac  and  Rebekah,  after  they  returned  home  ? 
Or  is  it  an  example  which  my  learned  antagonists  are  themselves 
ready  to  follow  even  with  regard  to  the  free  negroes  of  their  own 
city  ?  Will  they  call  them  "lords,"  water  their  horses,  and  admit 
them  as  "  honored  visitors"  at  their  table  ?  Such  puerile  stuff  as 
this  may  be  called  '  argument'  by  these  writers,  but  how  any  man 
of  common  sense  can  so  regard  it,  is  a  mystery  quite  too  deep  for 
my  humble  comprehension. 


78  THE  DECALOGUE. 


CHAPTER  V. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  One  of  the  most  virulent  among  my 
adversaries,  who  calls  himself  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church,  endeavor 
ing  to  evade  the  argument  which  I  derived  from  the  Ten  Command 
ments,  is  compelled  to  admit  that  the  fourth  and  the  tenth  of  these 
Commandments  "  do,  undoubtedly,  apply  to  voluntary  service,  and 
also  to  that  Tcincl  of  servitude  authorized  Ijy  the  Jewish  law.'''1 

He  then  proceeds  to  say  that  if  the  Ten  Commandments  sanction 
the  slavery  of  negroes,  they  must  also  sanction  the  slavery  of  the 
white  race,  both  Jew  and  Gentile.  Because  "justice  holds  an  even 
balance,  and  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  the  nations  of  men." 

That  the  condition  of  slavery  was  not  confined  to  the  negro,  but 
was  extended  to  all  the  various  races  of  mankind,  is  a  fact  to  which 
the  history  of  the  world  bears  ample  testimony,  as  we  shall  see  by 
and  by.  The  question  in  controversy,  however,  is  whether  the  re 
lation  of  master  and  slave  involves  sin  ;  and  the  admission  of  the 
author  that  it  was  sanctioned  by  two  of  the  Ten  Commandments, 
ought,  of  itself,  to  have  been  decisive  to  any  believer  in  the  Word  of 
God.  Yet  he  pays  no  regard  whatever  to  this  divine  authority,  pre 
ferring  to  place  his  faith  in  the  assumed  equality  of  men,  proclaimed 
by  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  He  does  not,  indeed,  attempt 
to  meet  the  argument  on  the  subject,  but  contents  himself,  like  the 
other  writers  and  orators  of  his  school,  with  repeating  the  language 
of  the  Declaration,  as  if  that  was  conclusive  and  incontrovertible. 
Bnt  however  such  arguers  may  talk  or  write,  they  know  and  feel 
that  there  are  enormous  distinctions  in  the  conditions  of  the  hu 
man  race,  which  they  can  not  account  for,  save  by  referring  them 
to  the  will  of  the  All-wise  and  Supreme  Disposer.  It  is  not  in  their 
power  to  equalize  them  even  in  a  single  village.  And  if,  in  the  order 
of  divine  Providence,  they  have  themselves  been  placed  in  any  of 
the  higher  ranks,  either  by  education,  property,  or  social  position,  I 
run  no  risk  in  saying  that  they  are  quite  as  tenacious  of  their  privi- 


THE  DECALOGUE.  79 

leges,  and  quite  as  averse  to  see  them  invaded  by  their  inferiors,  as 
any  of  those  who  maintain  the  lawfulness  of  the  Southern  insti 
tution. 

This  writer,  however,  does  not  pretend  to  deny  the  Mosaic  law 
which  I  adduced,  proving  that  the  Almighty  expressly  directed  his 
chosen  people  to  buy  slaves  of  the  heathen  nations  round  them,  as 
well  as  of  the  alien  races  that  dwelt  within  the  coasts  of  Israel. 

But  he  objects,  first,  That  this  relates  only  to  Jewish  servants,  and 
not  to  heathen  slavery. 

Secondly.  That  this  law  was  given  to  the  Jews,  and  not  to  us  Gen 
tiles. 

And,  thirdly,  That  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  is  equivalent  to 
man-stealing. 

Now  this  is  merely  a  poor  attempt  to  evade  the  real  question, 
namety,  whether  slavery,  in  the  ordinary  legal  sense  of  servitude  for 
life  descending  to  the  offspring,  involves  a  sin  per  se.  The  ultra-abo 
litionist  asserts  that  it  does,  and  on  that  ground,  insists  on  the  imme 
diate  emancipation  of  all  the  Southern  slaves,  and  abuses  the  Consti 
tution  as  a  covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell.  I  in 
sist,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  relation  of  master  and  slave,  when  au 
thorized  by  the  law  of  the  land,  involves  no  sin,  but  is  justified  by 
the  Word  of  God,  as  well  as  by  the  Constitution.  I  appeal  to  the 
Old  Testament  for  the  proof,  and  I  am  told  that  this  law  was  given 
to  the  Jews,  and  not  to  the  Gentiles,  as  if  the  Almighty  authorized 
the  Jew  to  do  what  would  be  a  sin  in  the  Christian  !  And  this  is 
done  by  a  writer  who  calls  himself  a  clergyman  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  and  who,  therefore,  has  solemnly  assented  to  the 
thirty -nine  articles,  in  the  seventh  of  which  we  read  that  "The  Old 
Testament  is  not  contrary  to  the  New — that  although  the  Law  given 
from  God  by  Moses,  as  touching  ceremonies  and  rights,  do  not  bind 
Christian  men,  nor  the  civil  precepts  thereof  ought  of  necessity  to  be 
received  in  any  commonwealth,  yet  notwithstanding,  no  Christian 
man  whatever  is  free  from  the  obedience  of  the  commandments  which 
are  called  moral."  He  had  been  compelled  to  admit  that  the  fourth 
and  the  tenth  commandments  of  the  Decalogue  did  "  undoubtedly 
apply  to  that  kind  of  servitude  authorized  by  the  Jewish  law."  He 
can  not  deny  that  the  Ten  Commandments  are,  preeminently,  re 
garded  by  all  men  as  "  the  moral  law."  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  the 


80  THE  MOSAIC  LAW. 

Article,  and  of  his  own  admission,  he  insists  that  this  part  of  the  law 
does  not  concern  Christians  ! 

But  he  contends  that  the  Mosaic  system  did  not  refer  to  heathen 
slavery.  And  here  I  would  ask,  What  does  he  mean  by  heathen 
slavery  ?  Is  it  that  the  masters  were  heathen,  or  that  the  slaves  must 
be  taken  from  a  heathen  race  ?  If  the  term  heathen  refers  to  the 
masters,  there  is  an  end  at  once  to  his  whole  objection  ;  because  the 
masters  of  our  Southern  slaves  are  not  heathen,  but  as  good  Christ 
ians,  in  general,  as  any  of  their  defamcrs.  If  the  word  heathen  refers 
io  the  race  which  the  Jews  were  allowed  to  hold  in  bondage,  then  the 
Jewish  system  was  heathen  slavery,  that  is,  the  slavery  of  a  heathen 
race  ;  and  such  precisely  was  the  fact  with  respect  to  the  negro  race, 
imported  from  Africa. 

His  third  objection  is,  that  "  the  Jewish  law  forbids  '  -man-stealing? 
which  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  heathen  code  of  slavery."  "  lie  that 
stealeth  a  man  and  selleth  him,  or  if  he  be  found  in  his  hand,  he 
shall  surely  be  put  to  death."  And  here  I  can  not  but  admire  the 
beautiful  consistency  which,  just  after  telling  us  that  the  law  was 
given  to  the  Jews,  and  not  to  us  Gentiles,  goes  back  to  that  law  most 
gladly,  when  he  thinks  it  in  his  favor.  But  he  ought  to  have  quoted 
it  as  it  stands  in  the  very  place  to  which  he  refers.  Deut.  24  :  7. 
"  If  a  man  be  found  stealing  any  of  his  brethren  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  and  maketh  merchandise  of  him,  or  selleth  him,  .  .  then  that 
thief  shall  die."  My  assailant  omits,  in  this  verse,  the  whole  limita 
tion  which  gave  the  law  its  proper  character.  For  the  Almighty  had 
repeatedly  commanded  that  the  children  of  Israel  should  not  be  sold 
as  bondsmen.  "  Both  thy  bondmen  and  bondmaids  which  thou  shalt 
have,"  saith  the  Deity,  "  shall  be  of  the  heathen  that  are  roundabout 
you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy  bondmen  and  bondmaids.  Moreover  of 
the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them 
shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you  which  they  begat 
in  your  land,  and  they  shall  be  your  possession.  And  ye  shall  take 
them  for  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after  you,  to  inherit  them 
for  a  possession.  They  shall  be  your  bondmen  forever,  but  over 
your  brethren  the  children  of  Israel,  ye  shall  not  rule  over  one  an 
other  with  rigor.  For  unto  me  the  children  of  Israel  are  servants 
whom  I  brought  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  I  am  the  Lord  your 
God."  (Lev.  25 :  40-46,  with  v.  55.) 
The  law  is  here  given,  therefore,  with  the  reason  of  it.  If  the 


THE  MOSAIC  LAW.  81 

Israelite  were*  stolen,  the  man  that  stole  him  was  a  thief,  because  he 
stole  the  property  of  the  Lord,  who  counted  all  the  Israelites  as  his 
bondservants.  But  this  only  applied  to  the  children  of  Israel.  There 
is  another  application  of  the  principle,  which  the  ultra-abolitionist 
does  not  consider,  as  when  a  slave,  lawfully  belonging  to  a  Jewish  or 
a  Christian  master,  is  ^tolen  from  that  master.  For  it  is  impossible 
to  steal  that  which  has  no  owner.  The  very  crime  of  stealing  con 
sists  in  &  felonious  taking  of  the  lawful  property  of  another.  And 
it  is  not  the  subsequent  use  of  that  property,  but  the  felonious  talcing 
which  constitutes  the  theft,  for  a  man  may  be  quite  as  much  a  thief 
by  taking  from  the  owner  what  he  can  not  use  himself,  as  if  he  in 
tended  to  make  a  profit  of  it.  On  this  plain  ground  of  law  and  justice, 
it  is  worthy  of  very  serious  reflection  whether  the  abolitionist,  who 
secretly  entices  the  negro  slave  to  abscond  from  his  lawful  owner, 
and  thus  deprives  the  master  of  his  legal  property,  is  not,  on  prin 
ciple,  liable  to  this  very  charge  of  man-stealing  ;  and  therefore  sub 
ject  to  the  condemnation  of  the  divine  law. 

The  next  point  made  by  this  writer  is  derived  from  the  Mosaic 
precept  which  commanded  that  "a  slave,  escaping  from  a  heathen 
master,  and  coming  under  the  authority  of  the  Jewish  law,  should 
should  not  be  delivered  up,  but  should  be  -free  in  Israel."  And  here 
my  antagonist  thanks  me  for  having  said  that  "  this  evidently  must 
be  referred  to  the  case  of  a  slave  who  had  escaped  from  a  foreign 
heathen  master,  and  can  not,  with  any  sound  reason,  be  applied  to 
the  slaves  of  the  Israelites  themselves." 

It  is  certainly  amusing  to  read  the  conclusion  which  my  ingenious 
critic  draws  from  this  statement,  viz.  :  "  That  by  the  Jewish  law  no 
person  could  be  held  in  heathen  slavery,  and  therefore  if  that  law 
was  in  force  at  the  South,  it  would  free  every  slave  ly  an  authority 
higher  than  that  of  man" 

I  shall  not  undertake  to  decide  whether  the  author  of  this  sentence 
thought  that  his  readers  had  lost  their  understanding,  or  that  the 
effervescence  of  his  zeal  had  deprived  him  of  his  own.  But  in  all 
the  nonsense  that  I  have  read  upon  the  subject,  I  have  never  seen  a 
more  puerile  absurdity.  The  law  in  question  is  admitted  by  himself, 
and  rightly  admitted,  to  apply  to  a  slave  who  had  escaped  into  Judea 
"  from  a  foreign  heathen  master"  so  that  "  it  can  not  with  any  sound 
reason,  be  applied  to  the  slaves  of  the  Israelites  themselves."  If, 

4* 


82  THEEE  SYSTEMS  COMPARED. 

then,  it  could  not  be  applied  to  the  slaves  belonging  to  the  Jews, 
how,  in  the  name  of  common-sense,  can  it  be  applied  to  the  slaves 
belonging  to  the  Southerners  ? 

His  last  effort,  however,  is  to  get  rid  of  the  whole  testimony  of  the 
Mosaic  law,  by  the  bold  declaration  that  "  between  the  Hebrew  bond 
man  and  the  Southern  slave  there  is  no  point  of  resemblance,  so  that 
we  can  not  use  the  first  to  justify  the  second,"  and  he  quotes  from 
the  respectable  Jewish  Rabbi,  Dr.  Raphall,  as  follows,  viz.  :  "  The 
slave  under  the  Jewish  law,  though  a  Gentile  or  a  heathen,  is  a 
person  in  whom  the  dignity  of  human  nature  is  to  be  respected;  he 
has  rights.  Whereas  the  heathen  view  of  slavery  which  prevailed 
at  Rome,  and  which,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  is  adopted  at  the  South,  re 
duces  the  slave  to  a  thing,  (a  chattel,)  and  a  thing  can  have  no 
rights." 

Now  here,  while  I  readily  admit  that  the  heathen  law  of  slavery 
which  prevailed  at  Rome,  differed  in  some  particulars  from  the  Jew 
ish  system,  yet  I  shall  prove  that  the  slave  in  the  South  is  more 
nearly  like  the  Jewish  slave  than  like  the  Roman.  I  shall  also  show 
that,  granting  the  Southern  slave  to  be  in  some  respects  a  chattel, 
the  Jewish  slave  was  also  a  chattel  in  the  same  respects,  precisely. 
But  I  shall  contend  that  in  every  other  aspect  of  his  condition,  the 
Southern  slave  is  considered  a  person :  for  his  life  is  protected,  his 
maintenance  is  secured,  and  he  is  the  subject  of  lawful  manumission, 
from  which  has  proceeded  a  result  which  neither  Judea  nor  Rome 
ever  accomplished,  in  the  new  State  of  Liberia. 

1.  The  Jewish  law  confined  slavery  to  the  races  of  the  heathen. 
And  in  this  it  resembled  the  Roman  law,  by  comprehending  all  the 
nations  "round  about"  Judea,  without  reference  to  their  barbarism, 
or  savage  degradation.     It  was  sufficient  that  they  were  "  strangers  " 
to  the  Jewish  stock,  and  I  have  proved,  by  the  express  quotation 
from  Leviticus,  (ch.  25  :  40,  etc.,)  that  the  rule  extended  to  the  fami 
lies  of  strangers,  resident  among  them,  and  "begotten  in  the  land." 

Such,  precisely,  is  the  Southern  system,  confining  slavery  to  a 
heathen  race,  but  limiting  it,  as  the  Jewish  law  did  not,  to  the  pos 
terity  of  Ham,  the  negroes  who,  in  their  native  state,  are  confessedly 
the  most  degraded  and  brutalized  people  known  to  history.  In  this 
respect,  therefore,  the  slave-system  of  the  South  has  the  advantage 
over  the  law  of  Moses. 

2.  The  Jewish  institution  was  like  the  Roman  law,  in  regarding 


THREE  SYSTEMS   COMPARED. 

the  slaves  as  chattel  property,  because,  in  the  words  of  Cruden,  al 
ready  quoted,  "  they  were  either  bought  or  taken  in  the  wars,  and 
their  masters  kept  them,  exchanged  them,  sold  them,  or  disposed  of 
them  as  their  own  goods."  That  they  were  liable  to  be  beaten  at  the 
master's  pleasure,  short  of  maiming  or  death,  is  perfectly  proved  in 
Exod.  21 :  20-1,  and  the  only  difference  between  the  Jewish- and  the 
Roman  law  in  this  respect  was,  that  prior  to  the  reign  of  the  Em 
peror  Antonine,  the  Roman  master  was  allowed  to  kill  his  slave. 
The  Jewish  master,  on  the  contrary,  was  punished  if  the  slave  died 
under  his  correction,  but  sufl'ered  no  penalty  unless  the  death  oc 
curred  within  "  a  day  or  two  "  after  the  blows  had  been  given  ;  for  if 
the  slave  died  on  the  third  day,  the  loss  of  his  labor  and  of  the 
*'  money  "  which  he  had  cost,  was  held  to  be  a  sufficient  infliction. 

Such,  substantially,  is  the  chattel  property  of  slavery  in  the  South. 
The  slaves  may  be  kept,  bought  and  sold,  or  punished  at  the  master's 
pleasure,  provided  death  does  not  ensue.  In  one  respect,  however, 
the  Jewish  law  had  an  advantage  by  enacting,  that  if  the  master 
struck  out  the  eye  or  the  tooth  of  his  slave,  he  should  let  him  go 
free.  But  this  is  quite  balanced  by  the  superior  guardianship  of  life 
according  to  the  Southern  law,  which  does  not  measure  the  responsi 
bility  of  the  master  by  the  fact  that  the  slave  survived  his  punish 
ment  for  "  a  day  or  two,"  but  holds  him  liable  for  causing  the  death 
of  his  slave,  after  any  interval. 

3.  But  although  the  slave  was  chattel  property,  alike  by  the  Jew 
ish,  the  Roman,  and  the  Southern  law,  in  which  point  there  is  no 
real  difference  between  them,  yet  I  insist  upon  the  unquestionable 
fact,  that  in  all  of  them  "  the  dignity  of  human  nature  was  respected," 
whatever  may  be  said  or  thought  by  any  man  to  the  contrary.  Be 
cause,  in  all  of  them,  the  slave  was  acknowledged  to  be  a  man,  to  be 
maintained  and  supported,  with  his  family,  to  have  access  to  religi 
ous  privileges,  and  to  be  set  free  ly  manumission,  if  the  master  were 
willing.  These  are  privileges  which  belong  to  PERSONS,  not  things. 
And  therefore  the  notion  that  because  slaves  are  chattel  property, 
they  are  regarded  as  nothing  else  ~but  chattels,  is  a  manifest  error. 
The  truth  is,  that  they  partake  of  both  these  characters.  As  CHAT 
TELS,  they  can  be  bought  and  sold.  As  PERSONS,  they  must  be  main 
tained  and  supported,  in  sickness  and  in  old  age,  as  well  as  in  their 
helpless  infancy.  By  the  Jewish  and  the  Southern  law  their  lives 
are  protected.  By  all  the  laws  of  Judea,  Rome,  and  the  South,  they 


84  THREE  SYSTEMS   COMPARED. 

are  entitled  to  a  share  in  religious  privileges,  and  they  may  be  manu 
mitted,  or  set  free,  if  the  master  thought  them  worthy. 

4.  With  respect  to  the  marriages  of  slaves,  the  law  of  the  South  is 
silent.     So  was   the  ancient  law  of  Rome.     But  so,  likewise,  is  the 
law  of  Moses.     There  is,  however,  one  remarkable  passage,  already 
quoted  in  the  Bible  View,  which  bears,  on  this  subject,  a  very  plain 
testimony :  u  If  thou  buy  a  Hebrew  servant,  six  years  shall  he  serve, 
and  in  the  seventh  year  he  shall  go  out  free,  for  nothing.     If  he  came 
in  by  himself,  he  shall  go  out  by  himself.     If  he  were  married,  then 
his  wife  shall  go  with  him.     If  Ms  master  hare  given  him  a  wife, 
and  she  have  borne  him  sons  or  daughters,  the  wife  and  the  children 
shall  ~be  her  master's,   and  he  shall  go  out  l>y  himself.'1'1      (Exod. 
21  :  2-4.)    This  is  a  plain  proof  that,  in  the  case  of  slaves,  marriage  was 
not  allowed  to  interfere  with  the  master's  right  of  property.     The 
husband  had  no  remedy  allowed,  except  to  become  himself  a  slave 
for  life,  if  he  wished  to  remain  with  his  wife  and  children. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  this  feature  in  the  Southern  institution  is 
liable  to  much  occasional  hardship,  and  it  is  greatly  to  be  desired 
that  it  might  be  regulated,  as  I  presume  it  will  be,  in  time,  by  a  bet 
ter  system.  But  meanwhile  we  have  no  right  to  censure  it  as  inex 
cusable,  so  long  as  the  same  difficulty  presents  itself  in  the  Mosaic 
system.  Nor  ought  we  to  doubt  that  the  Christian  slaveholders  and 
clergy  of  the  South  do  all  that  they  can  to  bring  the  marriages  of  the 
slaves  under  the  rule  of  religious  obligation ;  and  that  the  negro  race 
there  are  elevated  in  their  marriage  state  immeasurably  above  the 
polygamy  and  licentiousness  which  prevail  in  their  parent  land  of 
Africa. 

5.  The  last  topic  which  I  shall  notice  here,  respects  the  exclusion 
of  slaves  from  giving  testimony  before  a  court  of  justice,  which  has 
been  the  subject  of  an  immense  amount  of  objurgation  from  the  elo 
quent  adversaries  of  the  Southern  system.     Of  course  it  is  allowed 
that  the  same  rule  is  found  in  the  Roman  law,  and  in  the  law  of 
every  other  land  in  which  slavery  existed,  which  comprehended,  un 
til  lately,  the  whole  civilized  world.     But  as  the  Mosaic  system  lays 
down  no  special  rule  upon  the  subject,  I  shall  have  recourse  to  the 
historian  Josephus,  to  whom  one  of  my  antagonists  displayed  so 
much  partiality,  on  a  different  subject,  that  he  tried  to  make  him 
contradict  the  statements  of  Bishop  Newton,  though  happily  in  vain. 

Here,  then,  is  the  passage,  taken  from  the  same  translation,  vol.  1, 


THE  RESULT.  85 

p.  264:  "Let  not  a  single  witness  be  credited,  but  three,  or  two  at 
the  least,  and  those  such  whose  testimony  is  confirmed  by  their  good 
lives.  But  let  not  the  testimony  of  women  be  admitted,  on  account 
of  the  levity  and  boldness  of  their  sex.  Nor  let  servants  ~be  admitted 
to  give  testimony,  on  account  of  the  ignobility  of  their  soul ;  sfnce  it 
is  probable  that  they  may  not  speak  truth,  either  out  of  the  hope  of 
gain,  or  fear  of  punishment." 

Thus  we  have,  again,  another  instance  of  agreement  with  the  Jew 
ish  law  of  slavery.  And  on  the  whole  survey  the  reader  can  readily 
perceive  how  much  confidence  may  be  placed  in  the  reckless  asser 
tion  of  my  adversaries,  that  "  letween  the  Hebrew  londman  and  the 
Southern  slave,  THEKE  is  NO  POINT  OP  RESEMBLANCE." 


SLAVERY  UNDER  THE  APOSTLES. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Having  gone  through  the  principal  ob 
jections  of  the  anonymous  pamphleteers,  which  relate  to  the  Mosaic 
law  of  slavery,  the  next  question  presented  is  the  all-important  one, 
viz.  What  aspect  did  slavery  bear  in  the  judgment  of  the  Church  of 
Christ  ?  I  have  promised  you,  in  my  reply  to  your  protest  and  de 
nunciation,  that  I  should  demonstrate  the  "  truth  wherein  I  stand," 
by  proving  from  the  most  unquestionable  authorities,  that  "slaves 
and  slaveholders  were  in  the  Church  from  the  beginning — that  slavery 
was  held  to  be  consistent  with  Christian  principle  by  fathers  and 
councils,  and  by  all  Protestant  divines  and  commentators,  up  to  the 
very  close  of  the  last  century,  and  that  this  fact  was  universal  among 
all  churches  and  sects  throughout  the  Christian  world."  This  pro 
mise  I  shall  now  proceed  to  fulfil,  and  then  I  shall  notice  the  few 
points  which  may  have  been  left  untouched  in  the  course  of  the  ar 
gument. 

The  system  of  slavery,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  disappeared 
of  course,  wrhen  Israel  ceased  to  be  a  nation ;  which  event  took  place 
at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  army  of  Titus,  A.D.  76,  al 
though  I  presume  that  the  Jews,  dispersed  throughout  the  world, 
observe  the  law  of  Moses  so  far  as  circumstances  render  it  practicable, 
to  this  day.  The  Roman  code,  therefore,  is  that  which  we  have  now 
to  consider,  because  it  was  under  this  code  that  the  Gentile  churches 
were  all  gathered  by  the  Apostles :  and  the  authoritative  repository  of 
it  is  well  known  to  be  the  civil  law,  as  laid  down  in  the  "  Institutes" 
of  the  Christian  Emperor,  Justinian.  To  this,  then,  as  the  foundation 
of  my  argument,  I  shall  first  direct  your  attention,  and  afterwards  to 
the  fathers,  councils,  historians,  lawyers,  divines,  and  commentators. 
And  I  shall  prove  from  the  whole,  that  Christianity  never  undertook 
to  abolish  slavery,  even  when  it  extended  over  all  races  and  all  va 
rieties  of  men — that  religion  operated  to  ameliorate,  but  not  to  do  it 
awav — that  its  extinction  in  Europe  was  not  the  result  of  any  direct 


THE  KOMAN  LAW.  87 

assault,  but  a  gradual  dying  out  through  the  changes  of  society — that 
the  first  positive  attack  upon  it  was  not  from  the  Church,  nor  from 
Christians,  but  from  the  Atheists  of  the  French  Revolution ;  and  that 
it  was  never  supposed  to  be  a  sin  to  hold  a  slave,  where  the  laws  of 
the  country  authorized  it,  until  our  own  age  assumed  the  novel  work 
of  ultra-abolitionism. 

You  must  be  prepared,  therefore,  for  a  large  amount  of  testimony. 
And  if  you  can  no  longer  do  me  that  justice,  my  other  readers,  I  trust, 
will  bear  in  mind  that  I  undertake  the  task  in  defense  of  the  Bible,  in 
defense  of  the  Church  through  all  former  times,  in  defense  of  their 
own  forefathers,  in  defense  of  the  heroes  and  sages  of  the  Revolution, 
in  defense  of  the  Constitution,  and  in  defense  of  what  I  believe  to  be 
a  most  important  truth  for  the  future  welfare  of  our  country.  There 
is  this  difference,  however,  between  my  publications  in  1850  and  185T 
and  my  present  labor;  viz.,  that  then  I  wrote  as  a  volunteer,  foresee 
ing  the  approaching  danger ;  but  now  I  write  under  the  new  compul 
sion  of  self-defense,  against  the  gross  and  insulting  denunciation  of  my 
own  brethren. 

The  evidence  which  I  shall  adduce  is  gathered  from  many  sources, 
and  it  will  be  found  entire  in  the  original  extracts  which  are  arranged 
in  the  Appendix.  The  substance  will  be  stated  in  my  argument,  but 
all  who  desire  to  see  the  very  words  of  my  authorities  can  satisfy 
themselves  by  turning  to  the  notes,  which  are  regularly  numbered, 
and  occasionally  accompanied  by  explanatory  observations. 

Commencing,  according  to  the  order  prescribed,  with  the  testimony 
of  that  most  celebrated  code  of  civil  law,  which  bears  the  name  of  the 
Institutes  of  Justinian,  we  find  the  slave  system  largely  set  forth  in 
the  very  commencement,  under  the  title  of  THE  RIGHTS  OF  PERSONS. 
And  I  pray  you  to  mark  this  title,  because  it  proves  that  this  much- 
abused  code  regarded  slaves  as  persons  and  not  as  things. 

"  The  chief  division  in  the.  rights  of  persons,"  saith  this  code,  "  is 
this  :  that  all  men  are  either  free  or  slaves.  Liberty  is  the  natural 
faculty  of  him  who  does  as  he  pleases,  unless  when  forbidden  by  force 
or  by  law.  But  slavery  is  the  constitution  of  the  law  of  nations,  by 
which  the  individual,  contrary  to  nature,  is  subject  to  the  mastery  of 
another.  Slaves  are  called  (in  Latin)  servi,  from  servare,  (to  saw,) 
because  the  generals  were  accustomed  to  sell  their  captives  instead  of 
killing  them,  and  so  saved  them.  They  are  also  called  inancipia,  be 
cause  they  were  manu  capti,  taken  by  hand  from  the  enemy." 


88  THE  ROMAN  LAW. 

"  Slaves  are  either  born  in  that  condition,  or  they  are  made  so. 
They  are  born  slaves  from  our  bond-maids.  They  are  made  slaves 
either  by  the  law  of  nations,  (Jure  gentium,}  that  is,  by  captivity,  or 
by  the  civil  law,  as  when  a  freeman  of  twenty  years  allows  himself 
to  be  sold,  in  order  to  share  in  the  price.  In  the  condition  of  slaves 
there  is  no  difference  ;  in  that  of  freemen  there  are  many  differences, 
for  they  are  either  free  by  birth  or  freed  from  slavery."  (3) 

"  Those  are  freedmen  who  are  manumitted  from  lawful  slavery. 
Which  thing  (manumission)  takes  its  origin  from  the  law  of  nations. 
For  by  the  LAW  OF  NATURE  all  were  born  free,  and  there  could  fie  no 
manumission  when  slavery  was  unknown.  But  after  slavery  became 
established  by  the  law  of  nations,  the  benefits  of  manumission  fol 
lowed.  Hence,  by  the  law  of  nations  there  are  three  kinds  of  men — 
the  freemen,  the  slaves,  and  the  freedmen,  or  those  who  have  been 
manumitted  from  slavery.  And  manumission  may  be  granted  in 
many  ways,  either  by  the  sacred  canons  in  the  holy  churches,  or  by 
letter  or  by  will,"  etc.  (4) 

"  Slaves  are  in  the  power  of  their  masters  by  the  law  of  nations. 
For  in  almost  all  nations  the  power  of  life  and  death  was  exercised  by 
the  masters  over  their  slaves,  and  whatsoever  was  acquired  by  the 
slave  belonged  to  the  master.  But  at  this  time,  no  men  under  our 
government  are  allowed  to  rage  against  their  slaves  without  restric 
tion.  For,  by  the  edict  of  the  Emperor  Antonine,  whoever,  without 
cause,  should  kill  his  own  slave,  is  to  be  punished  no  less  than  if  he 
had  killed  the  slave  of  a  stranger.  And  the  same  Antonine  also  de 
creed  that  if  the  slave  were  treated  with  intolerable  cruelty  by  his 
master,  he  should  be  sold  for  a  just  price  to  another,  and  the  master 
should  receive  the  money."  (5) 

"By  the  law  of  nations,  those  things  which  we  take  from  an  enemy 
become  ours.  And  therefore  freemen  are  reduced  to  slavery,  who, 
nevertheless,  if  they  escape  from  our  power  and  return  to  their  own 
people,  are  restored  to  their  first  condition."  (6) 

"  Slaves  are  not  entitled  to  maintain  an  action  in  their  own  persons, 
but  their  masters  may  maintain  it,  in  case  of  any  atrocious  injury,  as 
if  a  stranger  should  beat  a  slave  with  great  severity,  his  master  may 
have  an  action.  But  if  any  one  reviles  a  slave  or  only  strikes  him 
with  his  fist,  the  master  can  have  no  action."  (7) 

"  We  utterly  prohibit  slaves  to  be  admitted  among  the  clergy,  even 
if  their  masters  consent  and  desire  it,  because  they  may  first  set 


THE  ROMAN  LAW.  89 

them  free,  and  thus  open  to  them  the  honors  of  the  ministry,  if  they 
will."  (8) 

"  If  a  slave,  with  the  knowledge  of  his  master,  who  does  not  oppose 
it,  be  ordained  by  the  bishop,  he  shall  be  held  as  one  born  free.  But 
if  he  be  ordained  without  the  knowledge  of  his  master,  it  shall  be 
lawful  for  the  master,  within  one  year,  to  prove  that  he  was  his  slave, 
and  to  claim  him  again  as  such.  And  if  a  slave,  whether  with  or 
without  the  knowledge  of  his  master,  being  made  free  by  ordination, 
shall  leave  his  ecclesiastical  ministry  and  return  to  a  secular  life,  he 
may  be  delivered  again  in  slavery- to  his  former  master."  (9) 

"  With  respect  to  fugitive  slaves  entering  monastic  life,  it  was  de 
creed  that  if  within  three  years  it  became  manifest  that  any  such 
were  a  fugitive,  he  should  be  stripped  of  his  monastic  habit,  and  his 
master  might  reclaim  him  ;  but  that  if  he  were  not  detected  until 
three  years  had  expired,  even  though  he  were  afterwards  discovered, 
he  should  be  free  against  his  master's  will.  But  since  we  see  that 
many  slaves  have  taken  advantage  of  this  law  to  flee  from  their  mas 
ters,  and  abuse  the  honest  monastic  profession  by  making  it  a  cloak 
for  their  malice,  we  command  that  however  long  a  slave  who  has  thus 
become  a  monk  may  lie  hid,  if  at  any  time  his  master  discover  him, 
he  shall  be  deprived  of  the  habit  which  he  assumed  with  an  evil  pur 
pose,  and  be  subject  again  to  his  master's  power."  (10) 

"  Concerning  those  slaves  who,  without  their  master's  knowledge, 
have  ascended  to  the  honors  of  the  Episcopal  office,  we  decree  that 
they  shall  be  degraded  and  returned  to  their  servile  condition."  (11) 

"  As  the  giving  of  testimony  is  an  act  of  great  importance,  it  should 
not  be  allowed  to  every  one%  but  only  to  those  who  are  free  from  igno 
miny.  But  the  laws  formerly  admitted  slaves  to  testify  in  certain 
cases.  Now,  however,  the  law  of  the  new  Constitution  must  be/en 
forced,  that  in  all  cases  none  but  free  men  shall  be  allowed  to  give 
testimony."  (12) 

"  If  any  one  is  so  demented  as  to  exchange  liberty  for  slavery  by 
selling  himself,  the  contract  shall  not  be  binding,  but  on  the  contrary 
shallbe  annulled,  and  both  he  who  is  the  betrayer  of  his  own  liberty, 
and  he  who  was  a  party  to  the  crime,  shall  be  chastised  by  scourging, 
and  the  intended  slave  shall  remain  a  freeman."  (13.) 

These  copious  extracts  from  the  civil  law  show  distinctly  the  gene 
ral  aspect  of  slavery  as  it  existed  in  quiet  union  with  the  primitive 
Church,  saving  only  the  last  four  clauses,  which  were  not  introduced 


90  THE   EOMAN  LAW. 

until  the  ninth  century,  under  the  Emperor  Leo.  And  I  ask  your 
candid  attention  to  a  few  remarks,  which  may  aid  in  the  proper  ap 
plication  of  this  highest  kind  of  testimony,  to  the  points  under  con 
sideration. 

First,  then,  we  see  the  law  of  the  Roman  empire  recognizing  and 
regulating  slavery  in  the  reign  of  the  Christian  Emperor  Justinian, 
more  than  two  hundred  years  after  the  Gospel  had  become  estab 
lished.  For  you  know  that  the  Emperor  Constantino  was  converted 
to  the  faith  in  A.D.  312,  and  the  famous  code  which  was  compiled 
by  Tribonian  and  his  colleagues  by  order  of  Justinian,  and  which 
bears  his  name,  was  not  published  until  the  middle  of  the  sixth  cen 
tury. 

Secondly,  we  see  that  slavery  is  here  said  to  subsist  by  the  LAW  OF 
NATIONS — not  by  local  law,  confined  to  this  or  that  territory,  but  by 
the  universal  law  which  extended  throughout  the  whole  of  the  then 
known  world. 

Thirdly,  we  see  that  its  origin  is  ascribed  to  war.  The  captives 
taken  in  battle,  were  liable  to  death.  From  this  death,  slavery  saved 
them,  and  therefore  the  Romans  called  them  servi,  as  persons  saved, 
or  mancipia,  as  taken  ~by  hand  from  the  enemy. 

Fourthly,  we  see  that  the  law  of  NATURE  is  distinguished  from  the 
law  of  nations  in  this :  that  "  by  the  law  of  NATURE  all  men  were  lorn 
free,  and  there  could  be  no  manumission  when  slavery  was  unknown." 
Here  the  civil  law  differs  from  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  for 
this  informs  us  that  all  men  are  created  equal,  whereas  the  civil 
law  only  states  that  they  were  born  free  when  slavery  was  unknown, 
that  is  to  say,  during  the  period  before  wars  arose  amongst  the  pos 
terity  of  Noah.  Doubtless  it  was  so,  because  war  is  the  parent  of 
slavery.  But  after  war  was  introduced,  through  the  progress  of  ini 
quity,  it  became  the  universal  practice ;  and  slavery  which  followed 
in  its  train  as  an  act  of  comparative  mercy  to  the  captive,  became 
universal  likewise,  both  existing  by  the  same  law — "the  law  of  na 
tions." 

Fifthly,  we  see  that  this  universal  system  of  slavery,  throughout 
the  Roman  empire,  was  not  confined  to  the  race  of  Ham,  but  included 
all  the  nations  with  which  the  Romans  had  ever  been  in  conflict. 
And  the  necessary  result  was  that  a  considerable  portion  of  the  slaves 
were  quite  equal  to  their  masters  in  race,  in  knowledge,  in  talent,  and 
in  mental  energy. 


THE  ROMAN  LAW.  91 

Sixthly,  we  see  that,  until  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Antonine,  the 
master  had  the  power  of  life  and  death  over  his  slaves.  But  this  em 
peror  did  not  ascend  the  throne  until  A.D.  161.  So  that  at  the  time 
when  St.  Paul  taught  slaves  to  be  obedient  to  their  masters,  and  sent 
back  the  fugitive  Onesirnus,  the  system  of  Roman  slavery  included 
this  very  power. 

Seventhly,  we  see  that  the  Church,  notwithstanding  it  existed,  from 
the  fourth  century,  in  the  highest  dignity  and  honor,  could  not  eman 
cipate  the  slave,  even  when  he  had  been  ordained  to  the  office  of  a 
bishop,  against  the  will  of  the  master ;  but  he  was  liable  to  be  re 
claimed  at  any  time  as  a  fugitive,  and  reduced  to  slavery  again. 

Eighthly,  we  see  that  although  slavery,  in  the  first  instance,  was 
the  result  of  captivit}r  in  war,  yet  afterwards  it  continued  to  be 
propagated  to  the  posterity,  and  that  this  was  the  result  even  when 
the  father  was  a  freeman,  provided  the  mother  were  a  slave. 

And  lastly,  we  see  that  nothing  could  liberate  the  slave  but  the 
will  of  his  master.  In  case  of  excessive  cruelty,  indeed,  the  Emperor 
Antonine,  in  the  second  century,  decreed  that  the  slave  should  be 
sold  to  another,  but  still  he  remained  a  slave,  and  his  first  master 
received  the  price  of  the  transfer. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  it  is  manifest  that  the  slavery  of  the  old 
Roman  empire  was  more  severe  than  Southern  slavery  in  some 
respects,  and  superior  in  none,  save  in  this  last  particular,  which  was 
not  enacted  until  a  hundred  years  after  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Paul. 
The  greater  hardships  of  the  Roman  Code  consisted  in  these  particu 
lars  :  that  all  prisoners  of  war  became  slaves,  no  matter  how  elevated 
they  might  be  in  race,  in  education,  or  in  mental  capacity,  whereas 
the  Southern  institution  is  confined  to  the  negro  race,  which  is  con 
fessedly  inferior :  that  prior  to  the  reign  of  the  Emperor  Antonine, 
A.D.  161,  the  master  had  the  power  of  life  and  death  over  his  slave, 
which  never  was  allowed  in  the  Southern  system ;  and  that  any  free 
man  at  the  age  of  twenty,  was  authorized  to  sell  himself  into  slavery, 
until  the  Emperor  Leo  took  that  abuse  away,  in  the  ninth  century. 

And  no  one  can  deny  that  this  system  of  slavery,  in  its  most  ex 
treme  form,  existed  from  the  earliest  ages.  It  was  in  full  force,  when 
the  spirit  of  liberty  expelled  Tarquin,  and  established  the  consular 
government  by  election.  It  was  in  full  force  when  the  same  spirit  of 
liberty  roused  contest  after  contest,  between  the  patricians  and  the 
plebeians.  It  was  in  full  force  when  the  spirit  of  liberty  sacrificed  the 


92  SLAVERY   AND  FREEDOM. 

famous  Julius  Cesar,  on  the  mere  suspicion  that  he  sought  to  be  a 
king.  It  was  in  full  force  in  all  the  states  of  Greece,  and  in  every 
other  country  known  to  history.  In  a  word,  it  was  universal,  sus 
tained  everywhere,  notwithstanding  the  indisputable  fact  that  the 
world  has  never  produced  more  energetic  struggles  for  liberty,  and 
has  never  heard  more  eloquent  declamations  in  its  praise,  than  those 
which  have  come  down  to  us  from  the  poets,  the  orators  and  the  sages 
of  antiquity.  But  this  ardent  love  of  liberty  had  no  effect  on  the 
condition  of  the  slaves.  That  remained  as  it  had  been  from  the  re 
motest  periods  of  history.  And  we  have  just  seen  what  it  was,  long 
after  the  Roman  empire  had  absorbed  the  Grecian  states,  when  hea 
thenism  had  sunk  prostrate  before  the  Cross  of  Christ,  and  the 
Church  was  established  in  all  the  power  of  its  pristine  energy  and 
devotion. 


ARISTOTLE.  93 


CHAPTER  VII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Before  I  enter  upon  the  opinions  of 
the  Fathers,.!  deem  it  only  just  to  the  philosophy  of  my  subject,  to 
present  a  copious  extract  from  the  Politics  of  the  famous  Aristotle, 
who  was  the  chosen  preceptor  of  Alexander  the  Great,  and  whose 
influence  had  not  only  so  large  a  field  among  the  ancients,  but  con 
tinued  to  operate,  during  many  ages,  upon  the  Church  itself.  I 
quote  from  Bohn's  London  edition : 

"By  nature,"  stiith  Aristotle,  "some  beings  command,  and  others 
obey,  for  the  sake  of  mutual  safety  ;  for  a  being  endowed  with  dis 
cernment  and  forethought  is  by  nature  the  superior  and  governor, 
whereas  he  who  is  merely  able  to  execute  by  bodily  labor,  is  the  in 
ferior  and  a  natural  slave:  and  hence  the  interest  of  master  and 
slave  is  identical.'1''  * 

Again  :  "  He  then  is  ~by  nature  farmed  a  slave,  who  is  fitted  to 
become  the  chattel  of  another  person,  and  on  that  account  is  so,  and 
who  has  just  reason  enough  to  perceive  that  there  is  such  a  faculty 
as  reason,  without  being  endued  with  the  use  of  it.  Now  it  is  the 
intention  of  nature  to  make  the  bodies  of  slaves  and  freemen  differ 
ent  from  each  other,  that  the  one  should  be  robust  for  their  neces 
sary  purposes,  but  the  others  erect ;  useless  indeed  for  such  servile 
labors,  but  fit  for  civil  life,  which  is  divided  between  the  duties  of 
war  and  peace  ;  though  the  contrary  often  takes  place,  namely,  that 
the  one  have  the  bodies,  but  the  other  have  the  souls,  of  free  citizens. 
For  this  at  all  events  is  evident,  that  if  they  excelled,  others  as  much 
as  the  statues  of  the  gods  excel  the  human  form,  every  one  would 
allow  that  the  inferiors  ought  to  be  slaves  to  the  others.  And  since 
this  is  true  with  respect  to  the  body,  it  is  still  more  just  to  determine 
in  the  same  manner,  when  wre  consider  the  soul,  though  it  is  not  so 
easy  to  perceive  the  beauty  of  the  soul  as  it  is  of  the  body.  It  is 
clear  then  that  some  men  are  free  l>y  nature,  and  others  are  slaves, 

'*  The  Politics  and  Economics  of  Aristotle.    Book  1,  ch.  ii.  p.  4. 


94  AKISTOTLE. 

•  * 

and  that  in  the  case  of  the  latter,  the  lot  of  slavery  is  loth  advanta 
geous  and  just "  * 

Proceeding  in  the  argument,  our  philosopher  next  takes  into  con 
sideration  the  opinions  of  Plato  and  others,  who  held  the  lawfulness 
of  enslaving  prisoners  taken  in  war,  and  therein  differed  from  him. 

"It  is  not  difficult,"  saith  Aristotle,  "to  perceive  that  those  who 
maintain  the  contrary  opinion  have  some  reason  on  their  side,  for 
slavery  and  a  slave  have  each  two  different  senses,  (significations  ;) 
for  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  slave  by  custom  ;  and  this  custom  is  a 
sort  of  compact  by  which  whatsoever  is  taken  in  battle,  is  said  to  be 
the  property  of  the  conqueror.  But  many  persons  call  in  question 
this  right,  and  say  that  it  would  be  hard  that  whoever  is  compelled 
by  violence  should  become  the  slave  and  subject  of  another,  who  has 
the  power  to  compel  him,  and  is  his  superior  in  strength ;  and  even 
of  those  who  are  wise,  some  think  one  way,  and  some  another  on 
this  subject.  But  the  source  of  this  doubt  and  that  which  makes 
this  conflict  of  opinions  is  the  fact  that  ability,  when  accompanied 
with  proper  means,  in  a  certain  way,  is  able  to  commit  the  greatest 
violence,  for  victory  is  always  owing  to  some  superior  advantage  ;  so 
that  it  seems  that  violence  does  not  prevail  without  ability,  and  so 
the  dispute  is  only  concerning  what  is  just.  For  on  this  account 
some  persons  think  that  justice  consists  in  benevolence,  while  others 
think  it  just  that  the  superior  should  govern,  since  in  the  midst 
of  these  contrary  opinions,  the  opposite  argument  has  nothing 
\veighty  enough  to  persuade  us  that  the  superior  on  the  score  of 
ability  ought  not  to  rule  and  govern.  But  nevertheless,  some  per 
sons,  (the  Platonists,)  clinging,  as  they  think,  to  a  certain  plea  of 
right,  (for  custom  is  a  kind  of  right,)  insist  that  slavery  in  war  is 
just,  but  at  the  same  time  they  contradict  themselves.  For  it  may 
happen  that  the  principle  upon  which  the  wars  were  commenced  is 
unjust ;  and  no  one  will  say  that  the  man  who  is  undeservedly  en 
slaved  is  therefore  a  slave,  for  if  so,  men  of  the  noblest  families  might 
happen  to  be  slaves,  and  the  descendants  of  slaves,  if  they  chance  to 
be  taken  prisoners  in  war,  and  sold.  And  on  this  account  they  do 
not  choose  to  give  the  name  of  slaves  to  such  persons,  but  only  to 
barbarians.  But  when  they  say  this,  they  do  nothing  more  than 
inquire  who  is  a  slave  by  nature,  as  we  said  at  the  first,  for  we  must 

*  Aristotle's  Politics.    Book  2,  ch.  v.  p.  13. 


ARISTOTLE.  95 

acknowledge  that  some  persons,  wherever  they  may  ~be,  are  of  neces 
sity  slaves,  but  that  others  can  in  no  case  be  slaves.  Thus  it  is  also 
with  those  of  noble  descent ;  it  is  not  only  in  their  own  country  but 
everywhere,  that  men  esteem  them  as  such,  while  barbarians  art 
respected  at  home  only ;  as  if  nobility  and  freedom  were  of  two  sorts, 
the  one  universal,  the  other  not  so.  Those  who  express  these  senti 
ments  show  that  they  distinguish  the  glare  and  the  freeman,  the 
noble  and  the  ignoble,  from  each  other,  by  no  other  test  save  that  of 
their  virtues  and  their  vices ;  for  they  think  it  reasonable,  that  as  a 
man  begets  a  man,  and  a  beast  a  beast,  so  from  a  good  man,  a  good 
man  should  be  descended ;  and  this  is  what  nature  desires  to  bring 
about,  but  oftentimes  can  not  accomplish  it.  It  is  evident  then  that 
this  doubt  has  no  reason  in  it,  and  that  some  persons  are  slaves  and 
others  freemen  by  the  appointment  of  nature  ;  and  also  that  in  some 
instances  there  are  two  distinct  classes,  for  the  one  of  whom  it  is  ex 
pedient  to  be  a  slave,  and  for  the  other  to  be  a  master,  and  that^it  is 
right  and  just  that  some  should  be  governed,  and  that  others  should 
exercise  Hint  government  for  which  they  are  fitted  by  nature.  And 
if  so,  then  the  rule  of  the  master  over  the  slave  is  just  also.  But  to 
govern  ill  is  disadvantageous  to  both  ;  for  the  same  thing  is  useful  to 
the  part  and  to  the  whole,  to  the  body  and  to  the  soul ;  but  the  slave 
is,  as  it  were,  a  part  of  the  master,  as  though  he  were  an  animated 
part  of  his  body,  though  separate.  For  which  reason  a  mutual  util 
ity  and  friendship  may  subsist  bettceelTTTiC^naster  and  the  slave.  I 
mean  when  they  are  placed  by  nature  in  that  relation  to  each  other ; 
for  the  contrary  is  the  case  with  those  who  arc  reduced  to  slavery 
by  custom  or  by  conquest."  * 

One  passage  more  will  close  my  extracts  from  Aristotle  :  "  The  art 
of  war,"  saith  he,  "  is,  in  some  sense,  a  part  of  the  art  of  acquisi 
tion  ;  for  hunting  is  a  part  of  it,  which  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  em 
ploy  against  wild  beasts,  and  against  those  of  mankind  who,  being 
intended  by  nature  for  slavery^XT^rwvanlliny  to  submit  to  it,  and 
on  this  occasion,  such  a  war  i&  by  nature  just."  t  , 

To  these  copious  selections  from  the  prince  of  philosophers  I  add 
the  remarks  of  Dr.  Gillies,  who  thus  sums  up  this  part  of  the  system 
of  Aristotle  in  the  introduction,  page  xxxviii.  etc.  : 

uln  the  relation  of  master  and  servant,  the  good  of  the  master 
may  be  the  primary  object,  but  the  benefit  of  the  servant  or  slave  is 

*  Aristotle's  Politics.    Book  1,  ch.  vi.  p.  14-6.  t  Ib.  ch.  8,  p.  19-20. 


96  AKISTOTLE. 

also  a  necessary  result,  since  he  only  is  naturally  and  justly  a  slave, 
whose  powers  are  competent  to  mere  bodily  labor,  who  is  capable  of 
listening  to  reason,  but  incapable  of  exercising  that  sovereign  faculty, 
and  whose  weakness  and  short-sightedness  are  so  great,  that  it  is 
safer  for  him  to  be  guided  or  governed  through  life  by  the  prudence 
of  another.  But  let  it  always  be  remembered  that  '  one  class  of  men 
ought  to  have  the  qualifications  requisite  for  masters,  before  another 
can  either  fitly  or  usefully  be  employed  as  slaves.'  Government, 
then,  not  only  civil  but  domestic,  is  a  most  serious  duty — a  most 
sacred  trust :  a  trust  the  very  nature  of  which  is  totally  incompatible 
with  the  supposed  inalienable  rights  of  all  men  to  fie  self-governed. 
Those  rights  and  those  only,  are  inalienable,  which  it  is  impossible 
for  one  person  to  exercise  for  another,  and  to  maintain  those  to  le 
natural  and  inalienable  rights,  which  the  persons  supposed  to  le  in 
vested  with  them  can  never  possibly  exercise,  consistently  either  with, 
their  own  safety,  or  with  the  good  of  the  community,  is  to  CONFOUND 

ALL  NOTIONS  OF  THINGS,  and   to   INVERT   THE  WHOLE    ORDER   OF  NATURE, 

of  which  it  is  the  primary  and  unalterable  law  that  forecast  should 
direct  improvidence,  reason  control  passion,  and  wisdom  command 
folly." 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  perfect  demonstration  of  the  principle  on 
which  the  advocates  of  negro  slavery,  in  perpetuity,  rest  their  argu 
ment.  We  have  seen  that  the  civil  law  held  men  to  be  free  by  na 
ture,  meaning  by  nature  the  condition  of  humanity  before  war  was 
known,  or  during  that  golden  age  of  the  poets,  when  all  was  suppos 
ed  to  be  peace  and  affection.  We  know,  from  divine  revelation,  that 
since  the  expulsion  of  Adam  from  paradise,  no  such  age  has  ever 
existed.  The  murder  of  Abel  by  his  brother  Cain,  and  the  shameful 
irreverence  of  Ham  towards  his  father  Noah,  prove  distinctly  that 
sin  was  ever  at  work,  from  the  period  of  the  fall.  War,  indeed,  in 
its  common  acceptation,  could  not  exist,  until  the  multiplication  of 
mankind  had  gone  on  for  a  considerable  period.  But  the  spirit  of 
war,  which  is  the  spirit  of  selfish  contention,  is  always  active  in  the 
human  heart,  until  it  has  experienced  that  mighty  change  from 
heaven  which  makes  it  "  a  new  creature." 

Referring  the  word,  nature,  therefore,  to  this  supposed  original 
condition  of  humanity,  the  civil  law  rested  slavery  upon  the  law  of 
nations,  or,  in  other  words,  upon  the  universal  custom  of  the  world. 
In  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle,  ^vvoy^r,  Jim,  irnrrl  tinfirm  •iftnifm<4T 
not  the  imaginary  condition  of  men  before  war  was  introduced,  but 


SOUTHERN   ARGUMENT.  97 

__the  constitution  of  the  mind  and  temperament  which  is  inherent  from 
his  birth  in  every  individual,  and  stamps  its  character  upon  his  fu 
ture  life,  under  every  modification  of  circumstances.  It  needs  no 
'argument  to  prove  that  the  great  philosopher  is  right,  in  this  use  of 
the  word,  nature,  because  it  is  in  the  same  sense  that  all  men  use  it 
in  our  own  day.  x 

When,  m  this  strictly  proper  application  of  the  term,  Aristotle 
saith  that  some  men  2^Q~^^^~^y~nature^ "ami  othefs~?reemen  by 
nature,  he  merely  declares  a  fact  which  all  human  experience  demon 
strates,  namely,  that  the  natural  constitution  of  mind  and  tempera 
ment  qualifies  the  individual  either  to  govern,  or  to  be  governed. 
And  freedom  is  therefore  the  best  condition  for  the  one,  and  slavery 
is  the  best  condition  for  the  other.  Hence  he  deduces  the  rule  that 
the  man  who  is,  by  nature,  fitted  for  freedom,  can  not,  injustice,  be 
made  a  slave.  And  the  man  who  is,  by  nature,  fitted  for  slavery, 
can  not,  injustice,  be  made  a  freeman.  For  justice  requires  that 
every  man  should  occupy  that  condition  for  which  nature  has  de 
signed  him.  To  force  him  into  any  other,  is  to  contradict  and  oppose 
the  order  of  nature,  and  can  not  be  beneficial  either  to  the  individual 
himself,  or  to  the  community. 

Thus,  then,  the  Southern  slaveholder  insists  that  the  sound  phi 
losophy  of  Aristotle  is  altogether  on  his  side,  in  the  bondage  of  the 
African.  For,  if  ever  there  was  a  race  of  men,  fitted,  by  nature,  for 
slavery,  the  African  race  must  be  admitted  to  be  in  that  condition. 
Hence  the  negro,  when  set  free,  rarely  fails  to  grow  worse,  instead 
of  better.  He  is  happier,  safer,  more  contented,  and  more  useful,  as 
a  slave,  than  in  any  other  position.  That  there  are  occasional  ex 
ceptions,  the  Southern  arguer  admits  ;  and  for  these,  emancipation  is 
allowed,  and  the  colony  of  Liberia  was  planted  expressly  for  their 
accommodation.  But  for  the  great  mass  of  the  negro  race,  he  con 
tends  that  slavery  is  their  proper  state,  on  the  very  ground  laid  down 
by  Aristotle ;  and  claims  the  experience  of  the  world,  as  a  demon 
stration  in  his  favor. 

In  the  view  of  the  Southern  slaveholders,  therefore,  the  general 
emancipation  of  their  negroes  would  not  only  be  ruinous  to  the 
masters,  but  cruel,  to  the  last  degree,  towards  the  slaves  themselves  ; 
because  it  would  thrust  into  the  dangers  and  difficulties  of  freemen, 
millions  of  human  beings  who  are  entirely  unfitted  by  nature  for 
freedom,  and  who  need  the  protection  and  government  of  their  mas 
ters,  even  more  than  the  masters  need  their  labor.  And  therefore 
5 


98  SOUTHERN  ARGUMENT. 

they  resist  the  policy  of  abolition,  on  the  very  ground  of  humanity 
and  affection  towards  their  slaves,  and  regard  it  as  an  act  of 
Christian  duty  not  to  cast  them  off,  into  a  condition  of  suffering, 
peril  and  degradation,  but  to  continue  their  government  and  guard 
ianship  as  a  trust  committed  to  their  hands  by  divine  Providence, 
which  they  can  not  give  up  without  making  themselves  accessory  to 
the  fearful  consequences. 

Of  course,  my  Right  Reverend  brother,  you  and  I  would  not  be 
likely  to  view  the  subject  in  the  same  light.  Men  are  usually  the 
creatures  of  circumstances,  and  rarely  reason  upon  any  subject  ex 
cept  in  accordance  with  the  habits  and  prejudices  which  have  formed 
the  greater  part  of  their  own  training.  If  we  had  been  born  and 
educated  at  the  South,  it  is  at  least  probable  that  we  might  have 
taken  the  most  extreme  ground  on  the  subject  of  negro  slavery.  And 
even  as  it  is,  though  all  my  notions  and  feelings  lead  me  towards 
abolitionism,  yet  I  can  not  deny  that  there  is  great  force  and  appar 
ently  great  truth  in  the  argument  of  these  Southern  gentlemen.  At 
all  events  I  must  admit  that  they  become  attached  to  their  slaves, 
and  the  slaves  to  them,  in  a  manner  which  I  am  not  in  a  position  to 
appreciate;  and  that,  in  the  words  of  Aristotle,  "  a  mutual  utility 
and  friendship  may  subsist  between  the  master  and  the  slave,  when 
they  are  placed,  by  nature,  in  that  relation  to  each  other."  I  must 
also  admit  that  the  subject  is  one  with  which  they  are  perfectly  fa 
miliar,  in  all  its  bearings,  of  necessity ;  while,  to  me,  it  is  a  mere 
matter  of  abstract  speculation,  and  therefore,  supposing  that  they 
have  as  much  intellect  and  Christian  principle  as  I  have,  they  ou-ght 
to  understand  it  much  better  than  any  one,  who,  like  myself,  is  a 
stranger  to  the  system.  Am  I  justified  in  assuming  that  I  have  a 
vast  deal  more  of  intellect  and  Christian  principle,  than  the  Southern 
clergy,  who  defend  their  domestic  institution  on  these  grounds,  of 
Scripture,  of  law,  and  of  sound  philosophy  ?  Can  I  say  to  them  : 
"  Stand  by,  for  I  am  holier  than  you  ?  Stand  by,  for  I  am  more  in 
tellectual  than  you  !  Stand  by,  for  I  have  more  philanthropy  than 
you  !  Stand  by,  for  I  have  the  master  mind  by  nature,  and  your 
minds  ought  to  be,  in  justice,  the  slaves  of  mine,  by  reason  of  my 
superiority!" 

You,  my  Right  Reverend  brother,  may  think  and  say  thus,  if  you 
can  prove  your  right  to  such  preeminence ;  but  I  must  be  excused  if 
I  dare  not  occupy  a  position  which  seems  to  me  the  very  reverse  of 
common-sense,  of  sound  argument,  and  of  Christian  moderation. 


PHILO  AND  TERTULLIAN. 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  I  come,  now,  to  the  statements  of  tho 
ancient  authors  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  shall  commence  with 
Philo  Judasus,  a  learned  Jew  of  Alexandria,  who  lived  in  the  first 
century  of  the  Christian  era,  when  slavery  existed  according  to  tho 
old  Roman  law. 

"  There  is  one  kind  of  slavery,"  saith  Philo,  "  of  the  mind,  and  an 
other  of  the  body.  Men  are  the  masters  over  the  bodies,  and  the  ap 
petites  and  vices  over  the  minds."  (14) 

"  The  divine  law  accommodates  the  rules  of  right,  not  to  fortune 
but  to  nature.  Therefore  masters  ought  not  to  abuse  their  power 
over  their  domestic  servants,  but  should  beware  of  insolence,  con 
tempt,  and  cruelty.  For  these  are  not  the  signs  of  a  serene  mind, 
but  of  tyrannical  weakness ;  exercising  arbitrary  licentiousness  instead 
of  judgment."  (15) 

Near  the  latter  end  of  the  second  century  we  have  the  works  of  the 
famous  Tertullian,  a  presbyter  of  Carthage,  whose  writings  were  held 
in  such  esteem  by  the  martyr  Cyprian,  that  when  he  called  for  them 
he  was  accustomed  to  say:  "Give  me  the  master."  Amongst  the  nu 
merous  treatises  of  Tertullian  there  are  some  against  the  heretic  Mar- 
cion.  And  here  we  meet  with  a  passage  which  shows  with  what  ab 
horrence  Tertullian  regarded  the  attempt  to  draw  away  the  slave  from 
the  service  of  his  master. 

"  For  what,"  saith  this  celebrated  father,  "  can  be  more  unjust, 
what  more  iniquitous,  what  more  shameful  than  an  attempt  to  benefit 
the  slave  in  such  way  that  he  shall' be  snatched  from  his  master,  that 
he  shall  be  delivered  tovanother,  that  he  shall  be  suborned  against 
the  life  of  his  master,  while  he  is  yet  in  his  house,  living  on  his  gran 
ary  and  trembling  under  his  correction  ?  Such  a  rescuer  would  be 
condemned  in  the  world  no  less  than  a  man-steal er."  (16) 

The  fourth  century  beheld  the  Church  freed  from  persecution,  and 
her  bishops  and  clergy  held  in  high  reverence  and  honor.  Let  us 


100  JEROME. 

next  turn  to  the  testimony  of  those  eminent  Christian  fathers,  whose 
authority  has  been  universally  respected  to  this  day. 

Thus  Jerome,  one  of  the  oracles  of  the  ancient  Church,  gives  his 
comment  on  St.  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  ch.  6,  v.  1,  "Let  as 
many  servants  as  are  under  the  yoJce  count  their  masters  worthy  of 
all  honor,"  etc. 

"  Not  only  the  good,"  saith  Jerome,  "  but  even  the  infidels,  lest 
the  slaves  might  seem  to  have  been  made  worse  by  their  religion. 
Neither  let  them  despise  their  master  as  only  equal  to  themselves. 
If  they  formerly  served  unbelievers  with  a  hateful  fear,  how  much 
more  should  they  serve  the  faithful,  of  whose  kindness  they  partici 
pate."  (IT) 

The  same  father  remarks  as  follows  on  1  Cor.  V  :  21 : 

"  The  condition  of  a  slave  can  not  be  opposed  to  the  Christian  reli 
gion.  Say  not,  therefore,  How  can  I  please  God,  who  am  a  slave  ? 
For  God  does  not  regard  the  condition,  but  He  seeks  the  will  and  the 
mind.  Therefore  neither  does  liberty  profit  nor  slavery  hurt.  Who 
ever  is  the  slave  of  man  is  free  with  God,  and  he  who  is  free  from 
men  is  the  slave  of  Christ.  Therefore  both  are  one."  (18) 

Again,  commenting  on  Eph.  6  :  5-9,  Jerome  saith  : 

"  The  Apostle  here  provides  that  the  doctrine  of  God  may  not  be 
blasphemed  in  any  thing ;  if  believing  slaves  become  useless  to  their 
masters.  For  he  who  is  about  to  permit  his  other  slaves  to  become 
Christians,  may  begin  to  repent  of  his  intention  through  those  who  have 
already  become  so.  But  if  he  sees  that  these  have  been  improved, 
and  from  being  unfaithful  have  become  faithful  servants,  not  only  will 
he  wish  that  his  other  slaves  may  believe,  but  even  he  himself  may 
perhaps  be  a  partaker  of  salvation."  (19) 

An  ancient  writer,  formerly  confounded  with  Ambrose,  the  Bishop 
of  Milan,  gives  this  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Colosians. 

"  Through  the  iniquity  of  the  world  this  occurred,  that  while  one 
invaded  the  territory  of  another,  freemen  were  taken  into  captivity, 
from  whence  they  were  called  manu  capti,  and  then  mancipia.  The 
same  condition,  of  things  continues  now.  Some  are  redeemed,  others 
remain  slaves.  But  with  God,  he  is  esteemed  a  slave  who  sins.  For 
it  was  by  reason  of  sin  that  Ham  heard  the  sentence  :  '  Cursed  be 
Canaan,  a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  to  his  brethren.' "  (20) 

The  same  author  furnishes  this  comment  on  1  Tim.  6  :  1-2  : 
"  He  "  (the  Apostle)  "  desires  masters  to  return  thanks  to  God  for 


AUGUSTINE.  101 

th-o  services  of  their  slaves,  since  when,  through  the  doctrine  of  God, 
they  rendered  such  faithful  services,  it  might  be  that  the  masters 
would  subject  themselves  to  the  same  doctrine.  If  he  commands  pro 
fane  masters  to  be  served  with  entire  diligence,  how  much  more  the 
faithful  ?  For  .then  the  slave  proves  himself  subject  to  the  fear  of 
God,  if  he  devotes  himself  to  his  faithful  and  earthly  master  with  his 
whole  mind."  (21) 

The  celebrated  Augustine,  as  you  know,  was  the  Bishop  of  Hippo, 
in  Africa.  lie  flourished  in  the  fourth  century,  and  as  he  is  com 
monly  esteemed  the  prince  of  the  fathers,  I  shall  give  you  a  liberal 
specimen  of  his  teaching  upon  the  subject.  Repetition  is  unavoidable, 
because  I  am  bound  to  justify  my  position  by  many  witnesses,  in 
order  that  the  opposers  of  the  truth  shall  have  no  possible  escape 
from  the  conclusion. 

Addressing  himself  to  the  holy  Catholic  Church,  this  eminent  father 
uses  the  following  language  : 

"  Thou  "  (the  Catholic  Church)  "  teachest  slaves  to  adhere  to  their 
masters,  not  so  much  from  the  necessity  of  their  condition  as  from 
the  pleasure  of  their  office.  Thou,  in  consideration  of  that  supreme 
God  who  is  their  common  Lord,  makest  the  masters  to  be  placable  to 
their  slaves,  and  more  inclined  to  consult  than  to  coerce  them."  (22) 

But  Augustine  had  no  intention  to  weaken  or  destroy  the  correc 
tive  discipline,  which  the  refractory  or  rebellious  slave  might  some 
times  require.  Therefore  he  lays  down  this  plain  statement. 

"  The  slave  fears  to  offend  his  master,  lest  he  may  order  him  to  be 
beaten,  or  to  be  put  into  the  stocks,  or  to  be  shut  up  in  prison,  or 
committed  to  the  workhouse.  Fearing  these  things,  the  slave  does 
not  sin."  (28) 

Again,  presenting  his  views  on  the  origin  and  principle  of  servitude, 
Augustine  adds  his  authority  to  what  we  have  already  seen,  in  these 
words,  viz.  : 

"  That  one  man  should  be  the  slave  of  another  is  the  result  either 
of  adversity  or  of  iniquity.  Of  iniquity,  as  it  is  written  :  Cursed  le 
Canaan,  Tie  shall  fie  the  slave  of  his  brethren  ;  but  of  adversity,  as  it 
happened  to  Joseph,  when,  being  sold  by  his  brethren,  he  became  a 
slave  to  a  foreigner.  Therefore,  the  wars  made  the  first  slaves,  as  is 
indicated  by  their  name  in  the  Latin  tongue.  For  the  man  who  was 
conquered  by  another,  might  be  killed  according  to  the  law  of  war ; 
and  because  he  was  saved  (servatus}  he  was  called  a  slave, 


102  AUGUSTINE. 

and  from  thence  they  were  also  called  mancipia,  because  manu  tapti, 
taken  by  hand.  It  is  also  the  natural  order  amongst  men  that  the 
women  should  serve  their  husbands,  and  sons  their  parents,  because 
in  this  there  is  justice,  that  the  weaker  should  serve  the  stronger. 
This,  therefore,  in  servitudes  and  masterships,  is  clear  justice,  that 
those  who  excel  in  reason,  should  excel  in  domination  also."  (24) 

Another  extract  from  Augustine  clearly  proves  his  opinion  concern 
ing  the  permanent  character  of  bondage. 

"  It  was  ordered,"  saith  he,  "  that  the  Hebrew  slave  should  servo 
six  years,  and  then  be  dismissed  free.  But  lest  Christian  slaves 
should  exact  this  from  their  masters,  the  Apostolic  authority  com 
mands  that  slaves  should  be  subject  to  their  masters,  that  the  name 
of  God  and  his  doctrine  be  not  blasphemed.  And  the  precept  is  suffi 
ciently  apparent,  in  a  symbol,  from  this :  that  God  commands  the 
man  who  had  refused  his  liberty  to  have  his  ear  bored  with  an  awl 
to  the  door-post."  (25) 

.  One  interesting  extract  more  will  close  the  testimony  of  this  emi 
nent  teacher. 

"The  first  and  daily  power  of  man  over  man,"  saith  he,  "is  that 
of  the  master  over  the  slave.  Almost  every  house  has  this  sort  of 
power.  There  are  masters,  there  are  also  slaves — those  names  are 
different,  but  men  and  men  are  equal  names.  And  what  saith  the 
Apostle,  teaching  slaves  to  be  subject  to  their  masters  ?  "  Ye  bond 
servants,  be  obedient  to  your  masters  according  to  the  flesh,  because 
there  is  a  Master  according  to  the  Spirit."  He  is  the  true  Master 
and  Eternal,  but  these  are  temporal,  according  to  the  time.  While 
thou  art  walking  in  the  way,  while  thoii  art  living  in  this  world, 
Christ  is  not  willing  to  make  thee  proud.  This  happens  to  thee  that 
thou  mayest  be  made  a  Christian,  and  haying  a  man  for  thy  master, 
thou  art  not  made  a  Christian  that  thou  shouldst  disdain  to  serve.  Yet 
since  thou  servest  man,  by  the  order  of  Christ,  thou  dost  not  serve 
the  man,  but  Him  who  has  so  ordered  thee.  And  therefore  he  (the 
Apostle)  saith :  '  Obey  your  masters  according  to  the  flesh,  with  fear 
and  trembling,  in  simplicity  of  heart,  not  as  eye-servants,  or  as  men 
pleasers,  but  as  the  servants  of  Christ,  doing  the  will  of  God  from 
the  mind,  with  good  will.'  Behold,  therefore,  he  does  not  make  free 
men  of  servants,  but  he  makes  good  servants  of  bad  servants.  How 
much  do  the  wealthy  owe  to  Christ,  who  thus  regulates  their 
home"  !  (26) 


BASIL.  103 

From  this  witness  to  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  Church,  I  pass 
on  to  another,  little  less  distinguished — Basil,  surnamed  the  Great, 
who  was  the  Bishop  of  .Cesarea  in  the  fourth  century,  and  held  in 
high  honor  by  all  the  Oriental  Christians,  as  one  of  their  most  illus 
trious  saints.  Laying  down  rules  for  the  monastic  order,  of  which 
he  was  an  authoritative  guide,  Basil  writes  as  follows  : 

"  Moreover  let  slaves  detained  under  the  yoke,  if  they  fly  to  the 
convent  of  the  brethren,  be  first  admonished  and  made  better,  and 
then  be  returned  to  their  masters  ;  in  which  the  blessed  Paul  is  to  be 
imitated,  who,  when  he  had  brought  forth  Onesimus,  through  the 
Gospel,  sent  him  back  to  Philemon."  (27) 

In  those  rules  of  Basil  we  also  find  a  collection  of  Scriptural  texts, 
under  this  expressive  title,  viz.  : 

"  RULE  LXXV. 

"  That  it  is  fitting  for  slaves,  with  all  good-will  to  the  glory  of  God, 
to  be  obedient  to  their  masters  according  to  the  flesh,  certainly  in 
those  things  wherein  the  law  of  God  is  not  violated." 

"  Servants,  obey  your  masters  in  the  flesh  with  fear  and  trembling, 
in  simplicity  of  heart,  as  unto  Christ,  not  as  eye-servants,  or  as  men- 
pleasers,  but  as  the  servants  of  Christ,  doing  the  will  of  God  from 
the  heart,  with  good-will  doing  service,  as  to  the  Lord  and  .not  to 
men,  knowing  that  whatever  good  thing  any  man  doeth,  he  shall  re 
ceive  from  the  Lord,  whether  he  be  a  slave  or  free.  Let  as  many 
servants  as  are  under  the  yoke  hold  their  masters  worthy  of  all 
honor,  lest  the  name  of  God  and  his  doctrine  be  blasphemed.  And 
those  who  have  believing  masters,  let  them  not  despise  them  because 
they  are  brethren,  but  serve  them  the  more,  because  they  are  faithful 
and  beloved,  partakers  of  the  benefit.  Let  the  slaves  be  subject  to 
their  masters,  pleasing  them  in  all  things,  not  contradicting,  not  de 
frauding,  but  showing  all  good  fidelity,  that  they  may  adorn  the 
doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour  in  all  things."  (28) 

Another  passage  will  suffice  from  the  testimon}*-  of  this  distin 
guished  witness.  Speaking  of  the  state  of  subjection  or  servitude  in 
which  men  were  placed  by  divine  Providence,  Basil  saith  that  "  they 
are  cither  oppressed  by  power,  and  brought  under  the  yoke  of  slav 
ery,  as  captives  in  war,  or  reduced  to  servitude  by  reason  of  poverty, 
as  the  Egyptians  under  Pharaoh,  or,  according  to  a  certain  wise  and 
mysterious  dispensation,  those  who  are  unworthy  among  sons,  are 


104:  BASIL. 

made  servants  to  the  wiser  and  the  better,  by  the  parental  voice ; 
which,  nevertheless,  a  just  estimator  of  things  would  by  no  means 
consider  as  a  condemnation,  but  rather  as  a  benefit.  For  to  him 
who,  on  account  of  the  poverty  of  sense,  has  not  in  himself  what 
nature  demands,  it  is  more  useful  to  ~be  made  the  slave  of  another 
man."  (29) 

Thus  far,  my  Right  Reverend  brother,  we  see  the  most  perfect 
unity  of  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  in  the  primitive  Church, 
in  those  purest  ages  which  came  next  after  the  Apostles  ;  and  when 
the  system  which  prevailed  was  that  of  the  Roman  law,  embracing 
slaves  of  every  nation,  instead  of  being  confined,  as  it  is  at  the  South, 
to  the  most  degraded  of  all  races,  the  barbarous  tribes  of  Africa. 
And  I  must  take  the  liberty  of  reminding  you  and  my  other  clerical 
brethren,  that  no  Protestant  Episcopalian  can  set  such  authorities 
aside,  without  being  false  to  the  first  principles  of  his  own  Church ; 
whose  great  Reformers  constantly  referred  to  them,  whose  Homilies 
argue  every  question  of  religious  truth  by  the  language  of  the  fathers, 
whose  ordination  services  recognize  these  "  ancient  authors"  as  the 
witnesses  to  our  form  of  government,  and  whose  Articles  cite  two  of 
them,  Jerome  and  Augustine,  by  name.  But 'I  have  not  yet  done 
with  their  testimony,  and  shall  proceed  with  the  list  in  the  next 
chapter. 


CHRYSOSTOM.  105 


CHAPTER  IX. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  After  Tertullian,  Jerome,  Augustine, 
and  Basil,  the  order  of  chronology  brings  me  to  the  great  Chrysostom, 
the  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  that  orator  of  the  "golden  mouth," 
whose  praise  was  so  preeminent,  and  one  of  whose  supplications  is 
still  retained  in  our  own  Liturgy.  And  I  shall  present  to  your  con 
sideration  a  very  long  extract  from  one  of  his  famous  Homilies,  of 
which  you  will  find  the  original  in  the  notes,  according  to  the  Latin 
version.  That  version  I  have  preferred  in  the  case  of  all  the  Greek 
writers,  because  I  take  it  for  granted  that  even  my  scholastic  readers 
will  generally  peruse  it  with  greater  ease  and  satisfaction.  Com 
menting  on  the  text  in  1  Cor.  7  :  21,  Chrysostom  speaks  as  follows  : 

"Let  every  one  of  you  remain  in  that  vocation  wherein  you  are 
called.  Art  thou  called,  having  an  unbelieving  wife  ?  Remain  with 
her,  and  do  not  put  her  away  on  account  of  the  faith.  Art  thou 
called,  being  a  slave  ?  Care  not  for  it ;  continue  serving.  Art  thou 
called,  being  uncircumcised  ?  Remain  uncircumcised.  Hast  thou 
believed,  being  circumcised  ?  Remain  circumcised.  For  even  as 
circumcision  profiteth  nothing,  and  uncircumcision  hurteth  nothing, 
so  neither  does  slavery  or  liberty.  And  in  order  that  he  (the  Apostle) 
might  teach  this  yet  more  plainly,  he  saith  :  '  But  if  thou  mayest  be 
made  free,  use  it  rather.'  That  is,  serve  rather.  But  why  does  he 
command  him  that  might  be  free,  to  remain  a  slave  ?  Because  he 
desires  to  show  that  slavery  does  not  hurt,  but  even  profits.  We 
are  not  ignorant,  indeed,  that  some  interpret  the  words,  'use  it 
rather,'  as  referring  to  liberty,  saying :  '  If  thou  mayest  be  freed,  Be 
free.'  But  this  is  very  contrary  to  the  meaning  of  Paul.  For  his 
design  being  to  console  the  slave  by  showing  that  his  condition  was 
no  injury,  he  would  not  have  ordered  him  to  become  free.  For  some, 
perhaps,  might  say,  If  I  can  not  (be  free)  I  suffer  injury,  and  have 
received  damage.  He  does  not  therefore  say  this,  but  as  I  have  said, 
desiring  to  show  that  he  who  is  made  free  gains  no  advantage,  he 
6* 


106  CHRYSOSTOH. 

saith:  'Although  it  maybe  in  thy  power  to  be  manumitted  and 
made  free,  remain  rather  in  servitude.'  And  then  he  adds  the  reason : 
4  For  he  who  is  called  in  the  Lord,  being  a  bondman,  is  the  freedman 
of  Christ.  In  like  manner  also,  he  who  is  called,  being  free,  is  the 
bondman  of  Christ.'  For  in  those  things  which  are  according  to 
Christ,  both  are  equal.  But  how  is  it  that  he  who  is  a  bondman  is 
free  ?  Because  He  has  freed  thee  not  only  from  sin,  but  even  from 
external  slavery,  though  remaining  a  slave.  And  how  is  it  that  he 
who  is  a  slave  is  free,  remaining  a  slave  ?  When  he  has  been  freed 
from  the  passions  and  afflictions  of  the  mind.  When  he  has  learned 
to  despise  money,  anger,  and  the  other  perturbations  of  the  soul. 
'  You  are  bought  with  a  price,  be  not  the  servants  of  men.'  This  is 
said  not  only  to  slaves  but  also  to  freemen.  For  it  is  possible  that 
while  he  is  a  slave,  he  is  not  a  slave,  and  while  he  is  free,  he  may  be 
a  slave  notwithstanding.  But  how,  when  he  is  a  slave,  can  it  be 
true  that  he  is  not  a  slave  ?  When  he  does  every  thing  for  the  sake 
of  God,  when  he  is  neither  a  deceiver,  nor  a  hypocrite,  nor  an  eye- 
servant  :  this  is  to  be  the  slave  of  men,  and  yet  free.  And  how, 
again,  does  any  freeman  become  a  slave  ?  When  he  performs  any 
action  which  works  evil  to  men,  or  works  in  the  service  of  gluttony, 
or  c.ovetousness,  or  ambition.  For  he  who  is  of  this  sort,  is  a  worse 
slave  than  all  others,  although  he  be  a  freeman.  But  consider  these 
things.  Joseph  was  a  slave,  but  not  the  servant  of  men,  for  even  in 
his  slavery  he  was  freer  than  they  all.  He  certainly  did  not  yield  to 
the  mistress  who  owned  him,  in  those  acts  which  she  desired.  Again, 
she  was  free,  yet  she  was  a  greater  slave  than  all,  because  she  be 
sought  her  slave,  and  implored  and  provoked  him,  but  did  not  per 
suade  the  freeman  to  do  what  she  desired.  Here  therefore  (on  Joseph's 
part)  was  not  slavery,  but  the  highest  liberty.  What  hindrance, 
then,  was  slavery  to  his  virtue  ?  Let  both  slaves  and  freemen  hear. 
This  truly  is  what  the  Apostle  tacitly  signifies  by  saying :  '  Be  not 
the  servants  of  men.'  But  if  it  be  otherwise — if  he  orders  them  to 
leave  their  masters,  and  contend  that  they  should  be  made  free,  how 
could  he  say,  'Let  every  man  remain  in  the  condition  in  which  he 
was  called  ;'  and  again,  '  Whoever  are  under  the  yoke  of  slavery,  let 
them  esteem  their  masters  worthy  of  all  honor.'  To  the  Ephesians 
and  the  Colossians  also  he  writes,  ordering  and  commanding  the 
same  things.  From  all  which  it  is  evident,  that  he  does  not  take 
away  this  slavery,  but  that  which  is  from  vice,  in  which  respect, 
slaves  themselves  are  free.'1'1  (30) 


PROSPER  AND   GREGORY.  107 

This  long  and  most  interesting  specimen  of  true  Christian  doctrine, 
from  the  illustrious  Chrysostom,  is,  of  itself,  enough  to  satisfy  a 
candid  mind  on  the  subject  before  us  ;  proving  distinctly  that  the 
primitive  Church  had  no  idea  of  regarding  slavery  as  involving  sin, 
in  the  relation  of  the  master  and  the  slave,  but  on  the  contrary  es 
teeming  the  condition  of  servitude  as  better  than  freedom  for  the 
slave,  while  the  bondage  to  sin,  whether  in  the  master  or  the  servant, 
\vas  the  worst  kind  of  slavery  ;  and  the  only  kind  which  God  requires 
all  men  to  cast  aside,  whether  they  be  bond  or  free. 

From  Chrysostom,  I  proceed  to  his  disciple,  Prosper  of  Aquitaine, 
who  flourished  in  the  fifth  century,  and  a  short  sentence  will  suffice 
to  show  that  he  held  the  same  sentiments  as  his  eminent  teacher. 

"  It  was  transgression  and  not  nature,"  saith  Prosper,  "  that  pro 
duced  the  name  and  condition  of  slavery,  and  the  first  cause  of  this 
subjection  was  sin ;  as  it  is  written,  every  one  that  committeth  sin  is 
the  slave  of  sin.  Hence  the  condition  of  him  who  is  a  bond-servant 
to  man,  is  better  than  that  of  him  who  is  a  slave  to  his  own  cu 
pidity."  (31) 

There  is  no  name  in  the  sixth  century  which  shines  with  greater 
lustre  than  that  of  Gregory  the  Great,  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  from 
his  writings  I  shall  take  my  next  testimony. 

"  It  is  well  known,"  saith  Gregory,  "  that  there  are  two  kinds  of 
good  servitude,  one  of  fear,  the  other  of  affection  ;  one,  the  service  of 
bondmaids  and  bondmen,  who  dread  their  master  ;  the  other,  of  child 
ren  who  love  and  please  their  parent.  The  bondmaid  fears,  lest  she 
should  be  punished ;  the  wife  fears,  lest  she  should  offend  her  hus 
band."  (32) 

Again,  in  his  book  concerning  the  "  Pastoral  Care,"  we  have  this 
rule  laid  down  to  the  clergy : 

"  Slaves  should  be  admonished  in  one  way,  and  the  masters  in 
another.  -  The  slaves,  to  wit,  that  they  should  always,  in  themselves, 
regard  the  humility  of  their  condition ;  but  the  masters,  that  the 
memory  of  their  nature,  in  which  they  are  created  equally  with  their 
slaves,  must  not  be  forgotten.  Slaves  should  be  admonished,  lest 
they  should  despise  their  masters,  lest  they  offend  God  by  proudly 
contradicting  his  ordinance  ;  the  masters  are  also  to  be  admonished, 
that  they  do  not  grow  proud  of  his  gift,  against  God,  (the  Giver,)  by 
refusing  to  acknowledge  that  those  who  are  by  condition  their  sub 
jects,  are  their  equals  by  nature.  These  are  to  be  admonished  that 


108  GREGORY  THE   GREAT. 

they  may  know  themselves  to  be  the  slaves  of  their  masters :  those 
are  to  be  admonished,  that  they  may  confess  themselves  to  be  the 
fellow-servants  of  their  slaves.  For  to  these  it  is  said :  Servants, 
ol)ey  your  masters  according  to  the  flesh.  And  again  :  Let  those  who 
are  under  the  yoke  of  bondage,  esteem  their  masters  to  ~be  worthy  of 
all  honor.  But  to  those  it  is  said :  And  you,  masters,  do  the  same 
things  unto  them,  forbearing  threats,  Tcnowing  that  their  Master  and 
yours  is  in  heaven."  (33) 

There  is  another  evidence  of  the  doctrine  maintained  by  Gregory 
the  Great,  which  is  not  only  conclusive  in  itself,  but  is  also  interest 
ing  as  a  specimen  of  the  ancient  forms  observed  in  such  matters. 
And  this  is  the  deed  of  gift  conveying  one  of  his  own  slaves  to  the 
Bishop  of  Porto,  which  was  a  small  suburban  diocese,  in  the  vicinity 
of  Rome.  It  is  as  follows  : 

"  GREGORY,  TO  FELIX,  THE  BISHOP  OF  PORTO. 

"  Moved  by  favor  of  your  charity,  lest  we  should  seem  unfruitful 
to  you,  and  chiefly  because  we  know  you  to  have  few  servants,  there 
fore  we  give  and  grant  unto  you,  our  brother,  by  direct  right,  John, 
a  servant  of  the  church  law,  by  nation  a  Sabine,  of  the  Flavian  pro 
perty,  aged  about  eighteen  years,  whom  you  have  had  in  your  pos 
session,  by  our  will,  for  a  long  while,  so  that  you  may  have  and  hold 
him,  and  preserve  and  maintain  your  right  to  him,  and  defend  him 
as  your  property,  and  do,  by  the  free  right  of  this  donation  as  his 
master,  whatsoever  you  will  concerning  him.  Against  which  charter 
of  our  munificence,  you  may  know  that  neither  we  nor  our  successors 
are  ever  to  come.  And  this  donation,  written  by  our  notary,  we 
have  read  and  subscribed,  granting  also,  your  profession  not  being 
expected,  our  license  of  recording  it,  whenever  you  will,  with  the 
legitimate  stipulation  and  security.  Done  at  Rome."  (34) 

To  these  clear  and  decisive  testimonies  of  the  famous  Gregory  the 
Great,  I  shall  add  one  witness  more,  a  saint  likewise  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  calendar,  Isidore,  who  was  Bishop  of  Seville,  in  A.D.  601, 
and  died  A.D.  630.  This  will  bring  us  to  the  seventh  century.  A 
single  extract  from  his  valuable  writings  will  suffice  to  prove  his  unity 
of  doctrine  with  all  that  were  before  him  : 

"  On  acc'ount  of  the  sin  of  the  first  man,"  saith  Isidore,  "  the 
punishment  of  slavery  was  brought  upon  the  human  race,  by  the 
Deity,  so  that  to  those  for  whom  he  sees  liberty  to  be  incongruous, 


ISIDORE   OF  SEVILLE.  109 

he  may  mercifully  appoint  servitude.  And  although  original  sin  is 
remitted  to  all  the  faithful  by  the  grace  of  baptism,  nevertheless  God 
has  equitably  put  this  difference  of  life  in  men,  making  some  to  be 
slaves,  and  others  masters ;  that  the  licentiousness  of  evil-doing  on 
the  part  of  servants,  might  be  restrained  by  the  power  of  their  lords. 
For  if  all  men  were  without  fear,  who  could  prohibit  any  one  from 
evil  ?  Hence  also,  princes  and  kings  are  chosen  over  the  nations, 
that  they  may  coerce  the  people  to  abstain  from  evil  by  terror,  and 
oblige  them  to  live  rightly  according  to  the  laws.  Better  is  slavery 
in  subjection  than  liberty  in  pride.  For  many  are  found  freely  serv 
ing  God  under  wicked  masters,  who,  although  they  are  inferior  to 
them  in  body,  are  far  above  them  in  mind."  (35) 

Here,  my  Right  Reverend  brother,  I  shall  close  the  testimony  of 
the  fathers,  only  reminding  you  that  all  these  writers  lived  before  the 
unity  of  the  Church  was  broken  by  the  separation  of  the  East  from 
the  West,  that  they  were  the  lights  and  ornaments  of  their  day,  that 
they  are  held  to  the  present  hour,  throughout  the  whole  Christian 
world,  in  the  highest  veneration,  and  that  our  own  reformers  had 
constant  recourse  to  them  in  every  controversy,  as  the  most  author 
itative  guides  to  the  sense  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  The  Bible  Avas 
the  unquestionable  rule  of  faith.  The  Church  was  the  interpreter.  And 
as  it  is  the  undoubted  maxim  of  the  courts,  in  every  construction  of 
written  law,  to  take  the  earliest  decisions  as  the  most  binding,  so  it 
has  been  among  all  sound  theologians,  that  the  oldest  voices  of  the 
Church  are  heard  with  the  greatest  reverence. 

But  although  I  have  closed  the  testimony  of  the  individual  fathers, 
I  have  not  done  with  the  testimony  of  the  primitive  Church,  present 
ed  in  a  still  more  solemn  form  by  the  Councils  of  her  bishops.  To 
these,  therefore,  I  invite  your  attention,  in  the  following  chapter. 


110  CANONS  AND  CONSTITUTIONS. 


CHAPTER    X. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  first  place  in  the  list  of  the  Coun 
cils  of  the  Church  is  due  to  the  very  ancient  code  called  "  The  Can 
ons  of  the  Apostles."  In  the  eighty-first  of  these  we  read  as  follows : 

"  We  do  not  allow  slaves  to  be  advanced  to  the  order  of  the  clergy 
without  the  will  of  their  masters,  to  the  injury  of  those  who  possess 
them  ;  for  such  things  produce  the  overthrow  of  houses.  But  when 
a  slave  is  seen  to  be  worthy,  who  may  be  chosen  for  that  degree,  as 
also  our  Onesimus  was,  and  the  masters  shall  have  consented,  and 
given  liberty,  and  dismissed  them  from  their  houses,  it  may  be 
done."  (36.) 

The  Clementine  Constitutions  may  be  reckoned  next,  being  an  old 
compilation,  supposed  formerly  to  have  been  arranged  by  Clement, 
who  was  the  companion  of  the  apostles,  and  became,  by  their  author 
ity,  Bishop  of  Rome.  By  many  critics,  however,  amongst  the  Roman 
Catholics  themselves,  the  work  is  assigned  to  the  third  or  fourth 
century.  But  be  this  as*  it  may,  these  Constitutions,  contained  in 
eight  books,  are  full  of  very  admirable  matter,  expressed  with  great 
force  and  beauty,  and  held,  especially  by  the  eastern  Churches,  in 
the  highest  veneration. 

From  the  fourth  book,  chapter  second,  I  quote  the  following  passage : 
"  Concerning  slaves,  what  more  can  we  say  than  that  the  servant 
should  have  benevolence  towards  his  master,  with  the  fear  of  God, 
though  he  should  be  impious,  though  he  should  be  immoral,  even 
though  he  should  not  accord  with  him  in  religion  ?  So  likewise  let 
the  master  love  his  slave,  and  though  he  is  above  him,  let  him  not 
withstanding  acknowledge  equality  inasmuch  as  he  is  a  man.  And 
let  him  who  has  a  Christian  master,  the  authority  being  secured, 
love  him  not  only  as  his  master,  but  as  a  companion  in  the  faith  and 
as  a  father ;  not  serving  with  eye-service,  but  as  loving  his  master, 
knowing  that  the  reward  of  his  service  will  be  rendered  to  him  by 
God.  In  like  manner  let  him  who  has  a  Christian  slave,  his  subjec- 


COUNCILS.  Ill 

tion  "being  secure,  love  him  as  a  son,  and  as  a  brother,  for  the  sake  of 
the  communion  of  faith."  (37.) 

From  these,  I  pass  on  to  a  number  of  Councils,  extending  from 
A.D.  341,  to  the  seventh  century  : 

COUNCIL  OF  GANGRA,  A.D.  341. 

"  If  any  one,  under  pretext  of  religion,  shall  teach  a  slave  to  despise 
his  own  master,  that  he  should  depart  from  his  service,  and  no  longer 
submit  to  him  with  benevolence  and  honor,  let  him  be  accursed," 
(anathema.}  (38.) 

COUNCIL  OF  AGDE,  A.D.  506. 

"  If  the  bishop  shall  have  granted  liberty  to  any  slaves  belonging 
to  the  Church,  who  have  been  well-deserving  in  his  judgment,  let 
the  liberty  thus  granted  be  preserved  to  them  by  his  successors, 
with  whatever  property  their  manumittor  bestowed."  (39.) 

COUNCIL  OF  ORLEANS,  A.D  511. 

"  The  slave  who  has  taken  refuge  in  the  Church  for  any  transgres 
sion,  if  he  has  received  the  sacrament  after  the  admission  of  his  fault, 
shall  be  compelled  to  return  immediately  to  the  service  of  his  mas 
ter."  (40.) 

COUNCIL  OF  EPONE,  A.D.  51V. 

"If  any  one  shall  kill  his  own  slave  without  judicial  authority,  he 
shall  expiate  the  effusion  of  blood  by  excommunication  during  two 
years."  (41.) 

COUNCIL  OF  ORLEANS,  A.D.  541. 

"  It  shall  not  be  allowed  to  the  slaves  of  the  Church  or  of  the 
priests,  to  take  spoils  or  captives,  for  it  is  unjust  that  while  their 
masters  are  sustaining  the  benefit  of  redemption,  the  discipline  of  the 
Church  should  be  stained  by  the  excesses  of  the  slaves."  (42.) 

COUNCIL  OF  ORLEANS,  A.D.  549. 

"  No  bishop  shall  presume  to  ordain  any  slave  who  has  not  re 
ceived  liberty  from  his  own  master,  nor  even  one  who  is  already 
free,  without  the  consent  of  him  to  whom  he  is  either  a  slave,  or  who 
is  known  to  have  enfranchised  him."  (43.) 

COUNCIL  OF  MAQON,  A.D.  581. 

"Therefore,  in  this  present  Council,  God  being  the  author,  we 
decree  that  no  Christian  from  henceforth  shall  serve  a  Jew,  but  that 


112  COUNCILS. 

any  Christian  may  have  license  to  redeem  him,  either  for  freedom  or 
for  slavery,  twelve  shillings  being  given  for  a  good  slave.  For  it  is 
an  impiety  that  those,  whom  Christ  our  Lord  has  redeemed  with 
the  shedding  of  His  blood,  should  remain  bound  with  the  chains  of 
his  persecutors.  And  if  any  Jew  be  unwilling  to  consent  to  our 
decree,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  slave  to  dwell  with  Christians,  wher 
ever  he  chooses,  so  long  as  his  Jewish  master  delays  to  come  for  his 
money."  (44.) 

COUNCIL  OF  TOLEDO,  A.D.  580. 

"  Since  we  are  informed  that  in  many  cities  the  slaves  of  the 
churches,  and  of  the  bishops,  or  of  all  the  clergy,  are  wearied  out 
with  various  vexatious  burdens  by  the  judges  or  the  public  function 
aries,  this  whole  Council  asks  of  the  piety  of  our  lord  (the  king)  that 
he  will  prohibit  such  presumptuous  doings  from  henceforth :  so  that 
the  slaves  of  the  aforesaid  officers  shall  labor  for  their  use,  or  for  the 
Church."  (45.) 

COUNCIL  OF  NARBONNE,  A.D.  589. 

"Every  man,  whether  free,  or  bound,  Goth,  Roman,  Syrian,  Greek, 
or  Jew,  shall  abstain  from  work  on  the  Lord's  day,  neither  shall  he 
yoke  the  oxen,  except  necessity  compels  in  harvest.  And  if  any 
presume  to  act  contrary,  if  he  be  a  free  man,  he  shall  pay  six  shil 
lings,  as  a  fine  to  the  treasurer  of  the  ciiy,  and  if  he  be  a  slave  he 
shall  receive  one  hundred  stripes."  (46.) 

COUNCIL  OF  BERGIIAMSTEAD,  A.D.  697. 

"  If  any  one  shall  manumit  his  slave  at  the  altar,  let  him  be  free, 
and  capable  to  enjoy  heirship  and  weregild,  and  it  shall  be  lawful  for 
him  to  go  wherever  he  will,  without  restraint."  (47.) 

COUNCIL  OF  AIX-LA-CHAPELLE,  A.D.  816. 

"  On  account  of  the  sin  of  the  first  man,  the  punishment  of  servi 
tude  was  divinely  appointed  to  the  human  race :  so  that  to  those 
whom  He  (the  Almighty)  saw  to  be  unfit  for  freedom,  he  mercifully 
ordained  slavery.  And  although  original  sin  is  remitted  to  all  the 
faithful  by  the  grace  of  baptism,  nevertheless  God,  in  equity,  dis 
tributed  life  to  men,  constituting  some  slaves,  and  others  masters,  in 
order  that  the  license  of  evil-doing  by  the  slaves  might  be  restrained 
by  the  power  of  their  lords.  There  is  no  accepting  of  persons  with 
God.  For  our  only  Lord  sets  forth  His  ordinance  equally  to  tho 


COUNCILS. 

masters  and  to  the  slaves.  Better  is  a  subject  servitude  than  a  proud 
liberty.  For  many  are  found  freely  serving  God  under  flagitious 
masters,  who,  although  they  are  subject  to  them  in  body,  are  far 
above  them  in  mind."  (48.) 

The  next  extract  is  from  the  capitulary  of  the  Emperor  Louis, 
which,  though  not  in  the  usual  form  of  a  Council,  is  of  equal  author 
ity  as  bearing  testimony  to  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Church. 

"  Concerning  the  ordination  of  slaves  who  are  everywhere  pro 
moted  to  the  ecclesiastical  degrees  with  indiscretion,  it  is  agreed  by 
all  that  regard  should  be  had  to  the  sacred  canons ;  and  it  is  there 
fore  decreed  that  henceforth  none  of  the  bishops  shall  presume  to 
advance  them  to  Holy  Orders,  unless  they  have  first  received  their 
freedom  from  their  own  masters.  And  if  any  slave  is  a  fugitive  from 
his  master,  or  lies  hid,  or  brings  forward  witnesses  influenced  by  a 
gift  or  corrupted,  or  receives  the  ecclesiastical  degrees  by  any  fraud 
or  knavery,  it  is  decreed  that  he  shall  be  deposed,  and  his  master 
shall  again  receive  him."  (49.) 

COUNCIL  OF  WORMS,  A.D.  868. 

"  If  any  one  shall  kill  his  slave,  whatever  he  may  have  committed 
worthy  of  death,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  judges,  he  shall 
cleanse  away  the  guilt  of  blood  by  a  penance  of  two  years,  or  by  ex 
communication."  (50) 

The  same  Council  enacted  another  canon,  with  which  I  shall  close 
this  portion  of  the  evidence : 

"If  any  slave,  during  the  absence,  or  without  the  knowledge  of  his 
master,  the  bishop  being  aware  that  he  was  a  slave,  shall  be  ordained 
a  deacon  or  a  presbyter,  let  him  remain  in  the  office  of  the  clergy,  but 
the  bishop  shall  pay  to  the  master  a  double  price.  But  if  the  bishop 
did  not  know  that  he  was  a  slave,  those  persons  who  gave  their  testi 
mony  concerning  him,  or  demanded  that  he  should  be  ordained,  shall 
be  held  liable  to  pay  the  same  recompense."  (51) 

This  may  be  the  best  place,  however,  for  the  consideration  of  an 
other  Council,  held  at  London,  A.D.  1111,  in  which  the  selling  of  Eng 
lishmen  appears  to  have  been  forbidden,  in  the  following  words : 

"  Let  no  one  by  any  means  presume,  henceforward,  to  engage  in 
that  nefarious  traffic,  by  which,  hitherto,  men  have  been  accustomed 
to  be  sold,  like  brute  beasts,  in  England."  (52) 

The  distinguished  Bishop  of  Oxford,  son  of  the  celebrated  Mr. 


114  COUNCIL   OF  LONDON. 

Wilberforce,  wrote,  when  a  presbyter,  an  able  and  interesting  History 
of  the  American  Church,  in  which,  toward  the  end,  his  sympathies 
with  abolitionism  are  stated  very  strongly,  as  might  be  naturally 
expected.  And  he  quotes  the  supposed  canon  above  mentioned,  say 
ing,  that  "this  must  be  the  ChurcWs  rule,  on  the  banks  of  the  Mis 
sissippi,  as  it  was  on  those  of  the  Thames."  From  his  book,  some 
of  our  American  Churchmen  have  taken  this  Council  of  London  as 
an  authority  of  great  importance  ;  and  as  I  was  not  a  little  surprised 
to  find  an  English  council  of  that  age  contradicting  so  strongly  the 
whole  course  of  ecclesiastical  legislation  on  this  subject,  throughout 
the  rest  of  Christendom,  I  took  the  pains  to  look  into  the  real  state 
of  the  matter,  and  discovered  that  the  statement  was  founded  upon  a 
mistake. 

It  is  true  that  such  a  council  was  holden,  under  Anselm,  the  Arch 
bishop  of  Canterbury,  and  the  canon,  as  quoted,  appears  as  if  it  were 
a  part  of  its  doings.  But  on  the  following  page,  we  have  a  letter  from 
the  Archbishop  himself,  which  deprives  it  of  all  its  supposed  author 
ity.  This  letter  I  shall  proceed  to  set  before  you : 

"  Anselm,  Archbishop,  to  William,  his  beloved  Archdeacon,  health 
and  benediction :" 

"  I  am  not  willing  to  send  to  you,  or  to  any  one,  at  present,  the 
resolutions  of  the  chapters  of  the  Council  as  set  forth  ;  because,  al 
though  they  were  brought  before  the  Council,  they  could  not  be  fully 
and  perfectly  stated,  by  reason  of  their  being  proposed  suddenly, 
without  the  premeditation  and  competent  examination  which  were 
meet.  Hence,  it  appears  that  some  things  are  to  be  added,  and  per 
haps  some  things  must  be  changed,  which  I  am  not  willing  to  do, 
unless  by  the  common  consent  of  our  episcopal  colleagues.  I  intend 
therefore  to  suggest  and  show  those  matters  to  those  bishops,  when 
we  next  come  together,  before  the  acts  set  forth  are  sent  to  the 
churches  of  England.  The  titles,  nevertheless,  of  the  matters,  con 
cerning  which  we  there  conferred,  we  send  to  you ;  that  according  to 
what  you  may  be  able  to  remember,  you  may  consider  us  to  have  de 
creed  concerning  these."  Then  the  Archbishop  sets  down  a  list  of 
subjects,  in  which  nothing  whatever  is  said  about  the  selling  of  slaves, 
so  that  this  topic  is  entirely  omitted  from  the  real  deliberations  of  the 
Council.  (53) 

This  positive  statement  from  Anselm,  who  was  the  official  head  or 
president,  must  be  conclusive  to  prove  that  there  was  no  definitive 


SUMMARY  OF  COUNCILS.  115 

action  on  the  subject,  but  only  what  we  should  call  a  proposition,  re 
corded  by  the  secretary,  without  any  discussion,  or  any  vote,  and 
therefore  not  in  any  sense  the  act  of  the  Council.  The  matter  does 
not  appear  again,  in  any  form.  And  hence  this  supposed  decree  of 
the  Council  of  London  really  amounts  to  nothing. 

And  yet,  even  if  this  imaginary  canon  had  been  actually  passed,  it 
would  only  prove  that  "  the  nefarious  business  of  selling  men  like 
~brute  beasts"  was  to  be  done  away  ;  and  therefore  it  might  have  been 
intended  to  abolish  the  public  slave-market,  without  affecting  the  in 
stitution  of  Yillenage,  which  we  know,  from  history,  continued  to  ex 
ist  in  England  for  several  centuries  after  this  time.  This,  you  will 
perceive  at  once,  on  consulting  the  original  Latin,  because  the  words 
slave,  slavery,  or  any  term  equivalent  to  them,  is  not  to  be  found 
there.  We  shall  see,  in  the  progress  of  my  work,  that  there  was  no 
change  on  this  subject  in  the  thirteenth  century ;  for,  if  there  had  been, 
it  is  impossible  that  the  lawyers  and  the  historians,  whom  I  shall 
quote  by  and  by,  should  have  failed  to  notice  it. 

Setting  aside,  then,  this  supposed  action  of  the  Council  of  London, 
we  have  the  testimony  of  the  other  parts  of  the  Church  throughout 
the  world,  clear  and  unanimous,  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
fathers.  Beginning  with  the  Apostolic  Canons,  and  the  Clementine 
Constitutions,  which  governed  the  East,  we  have  the  Council  of  Gan- 
gra,  in  Asia  Minor,  the  Councils  of  Agde,  Narbonne,  and  Orleans,  in 
France ;  the  Council  of  Epone  or  Epanum,  and  Ma§on,  in  Burgundy ; 
the  Council  of  Toledo,  in  Spain ;  the  Council  of  Berghamstead,  near  Can 
terbury,  in  England ;  the  Councils  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  and  Worms  in 
Germany — all  distinctly  proving  the  institution  as  it  was  acknowledged 
by  the  Church  for  the  first  nine  hundred  years  of  the  Christian  era,  pro 
viding  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves  to  their  masters,  repeating  the 
duty  of  the  slave  to  be  faithful  to  his  lord,  and  the  duty  of  the  mas 
ter  to  be  kind  to  the  servant,  while  not  one  suggestion  can  be  found 
imputing  sin  to  the  relation  between  the  master  and  the  slave,  nor 
regarding  it  as  a  matter  that  ought  to  be  abolished,  nor  treating  it  as 
inconsistent,  in  the  slightest  degree,  with  the  purest  principles  of 
Christian  piety.  Nor  is  this  the  whole.  For  these  councils  further 
prove  that  slaves  belonged  to  the  churches,  the  monasteries,  the 
bishops,  and  the  clergy,  daring  all  these  ages.  So  that  thus  far,  no 
fact  of  ecclesiastical  history  admits  of  a  fuller  and  more  decisive  de 
monstration.  Yet  I  shall  give  you  still  more  evidence,  so  that  you 
shall  say,  satis,  superque. 


116  FLEURY 


CHAPTER    XL 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Some  extracts  from  Fleury's  Ecclesias 
tical  History  will  now  be  set  before  you,  in  further  confirmation  of 
the  fact  that  the  Church  attached  no  sin  to  the  relation  of  master  and 
slave.  In  the  treatment,  there  might  be  sin  enough,  as  there  may 
be  in  any  other  relation.  But  the  institution  was  not  to  be  blamed 
for  that ;  and  hence,  while  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  amelior 
ate,  she  made  no  movement  to  abolish  it.  Such,  from  the  beginning 
under  the  Apostles,  was  the  universally  accepted  Christian  doctrine. 

To  the  examples  already  given  I  shall  add  the  following,  viz.  : 

"  We  have  still,"  saith  Fleury,  "  the  testament  of  St.  Gregory,  of 
Nazianzum,  dated  the  last  day  of  December,  A.D.  381.  He  there  takes 
the  title  of  Bishop  of  Constantinople.  He  continues  to  a  virgin,  named 
Russina,  the  pension  which  he  had  allowed  for  her  support,  with  a 
house  at  her  discretion,  and  he  gives  her  two  girls  as  slaves,  such  as 
she  shall  choose,  to  live  with  her  all  her  lifetime  ;  he  also  gives  her 
power  to  emancipate  them,  which  if  she  fails  to  do,  they  shall  belong 
to  the  Church  of  Nazianzum."  (54) 

St.  Perpetuus  was  another  of  these  primitive  Christian  slaveholders. 
He  "lived,"  saith  Fleury,  "until  A.D.  491,  and  we  have  his  testament 
made  about  May  first,  A.D.  475,  in  which  he  liberates  several  slaves, 
remits  all  the  debts  due  to  him,  and  bequeaths  to  his  church  several 
lots  of  Land  and  his  books."  (55) 

Alcuin,  as  you  know,  was  an  English  prelate  of  the  eighth  century, 
educated  by  the  Venerable  Bede.  Being  sent  on  an  embassy  from 
Offa  to  Charlemagne,  he  became  the  instructor  of  that  famous  mon 
arch  in  rhetoric,  logic,  and  divinity.  He  also  was  an  extensive  slave 
holder.  For  "  Alcuin,"  saith  our  historian,  "  had  the  control  of  the 
revenue  of  his  abbeys,  and  as  the  lands  belonging  to  them  were  in 
habited  by  serfs,  Elipand  of  Toledo  reproaches  him  with  having  of 
those  bondmen  no  less  than  twenty  thousand."  (56) 

"In  the  Council  of  Soissons,"  saith  the  same  author,  "holden  A.D. 


FLEURY.  117 

853,  the  bishops  invoked  the  king  to  use  his  authority — that  he  would 
forbid  the  seigneurs  to  hinder  the  bishops  from  having  the  peasants, 
who  were  serfs  under  those  seigneurs,  scourged  with  rods,  when  they 
deserved  it  for  their  crimes."  (57) 

One  quotation  more  from  Fleury  will  suffice  for  his  testimony.  He 
gives  us  the  decree  of  Pope  Benedict  VIII.  A.D.  1022,  just  eleven 
years  later  than  the  supposed  Canon  of  the  Council  of  London,  on 
which  the  Bishop  of  Oxford  laid  so  much  stress.  And  in  this  decree 
the  Pontiff  "  declares,"  saith  our  historian,  "  that  the  children  of  the 
clergy  are  serfs  to  the  Church  in  which  their  fathers  officiated,  even 
if  their  mothers  were  free,  and  he  pronounces  an  anathema  against 
the  judges  who  should  decide  the  contrary.  And  no  serf  of  the 
Church,  clerk  or  layman,  should  acquire  any  property  under  the 
name  of  a  freeman,  without  incurring  the  punishment  of  the  whip  or 
the  prison,  until  the  Church  should  have  withdrawn  all  the  titles  of 
the  property."  (58) 

The  tender  sensibilities  so  fashionable  at  the  present  day,  will  pro 
bably  be  shocked  to  find  the  bishops  in  the  ninth,  and  the  Pope  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  authorizing  the  punishment  of  the  whip  and 
the  prison,  but  I  hope  that  they  will  remember  how  the  pious  Puri 
tans  of  New-England,  when  their  system  was  in  its  glory,  and  their 
preachers  proclaimed  that  it  was  the  most  admirable  manifestation  of 
Christianity  which  had  ever  been  known,  scourged  the  Baptists  at  the 
public  whipping-post,  fined  and  imprisoned  the  Episcopalians,  ban 
ished  the  Roman  Catholics  and  Quakers,  and  when  these  last  dared 
to  return,  actually  hung  them  on  the  gallows  !  those  punishments 
being  inflicted,  not  for  any  crimes,  but  merely  because  the  Episco 
palians,  Baptists,  and  Quakers  insisted  on  following  their  own  reli 
gion  !  Since  those  days,  indeed,  the  posterity  of  these  worthy  Puri 
tans  have  become  exceedingly  tolerant  in  matters  of  faith,  so  far  as 
faith  concerns  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  or  the  ancient  creeds.  But 
they  are  far  from  being  tolerant  on  their  modern  dogma  about  the  sin 
of  slaveholding.  If  the  Apostle  Paul  himself  should  come  again,  and 
preach  the  language  of  his  own  epistles,  and  presume  to  send-  back  a 
fugitive  slave  to  his  Southern  master,  they  would  think  no  language 
too  bitter,  and  punishment  too  severe  for  his  transgression. 

'But  I  must  not  anticipate  nor  wander  too  far  from  the  order  of  my 
witnesses.  The  next  which  I  shall  summon  is  one  belonging  to  our 
mother  Church,  and  worthy  of  all  acceptation. 


118  BINGHAM. 


CHAPTER    XII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  work  of  the  learned  Bingham,  en 
titled,  The  Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church,  is  well  known  to  you 
and  your  clergy,  and  from  this  I  shall  next  take  a  few  corroborative 
testimonies. 

'"Another  state  of  life,"  saith  this  author,  "which  debarred  men 
from  the  privilege  of  ordination,  was  that  of  slaves  or  vassals  in  the 
Roman  empire,  who,  being  originally  tied  by  birth  or  purchase  to 
their  patroris  or  master's  service,  could  not  legally  be  ordained,  be 
cause  the  service  of  the  Church  was  incompatible  with  their  other 
duties,  and  no  man  was  to  be  defrauded  of  his  right  under  pretense 
of  an  ordination.  In  this  case,  therefore,  the  patron  was  always  to 
be  consulted  before  the  servant  was  ordained.  Thus,  in  one  of  those 
called  the  Apostolical  Canons,  we  find  a  decree  that  no  servants  should 
be  admitted  among  the  clergy  without  the  consent  of  their  masters,  to 
the  grievance  of  the  owners  and  subversion  of  their  families.  But 
if  a  servant  be  found  worthy  of  an  ecclesiastical  promotion,  as  Onesi- 
mus  was,  and  his  master  gave  his  consent  and  granted  him  his  free 
dom  and  let  him  go  forth  from  his  house,  he  may  be  ordained.  The 
Council  of  Toledo  has  a  canon  to  the  same  purpose."* 

"  The  imperial  laws,"  saith  the  same  author,  "also  made  provision 
in  this  case,  that  no  persons  under  such  obligations  should  be  admit 
ted  to  any  office  of  the  clergy,  or,  if  they  were  admitted  merely  to 
evade  their  obligations,  their  masters  should  have  power  to  recall 
them  to  their  service,  unless  they  were  bishops  or  presbyters,  or  had 
continued  thirty  years  in  some  other  office  of  the  Church.  By  which 
it  appears  that  the  ordination  of  such  persons  was  prohibited  only 
on  a  civil  account ;  not  because  that  state  of  life  icas  sinful,  or  that 
it  waS  any  undervaluing  or  disgrace  to  the  function  to  have  such  per 
sons  ordained,  but  because  the  duties  of  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
state  could  not  well  consist  together."! 

*  BingJiatn's  Origines  Ecclesiastics.    Vol.  i.  p.  487.    London  ed.  of  1943. 
t  Ib.  vol  i.  p.  488. 


BINGHAM.  119 

Again,  saith  our  author:  "By  one  of  the  laws  of  the  Theodosian 
Code,  no  slave  is  allowed  to  have  sanctuary  or  entertainment  in  any 
church  above  one  day,  when  notice  was  to  "be  given  to  his  master, 
from  whom  he  fled  for  fear  of  punishment,  that  he  might  reclaim  him 
and  carry  him  back  to  his  own  possession,  only  giving  promise  of  in 
demnity  and  pardon  for  his  faults,  if  they  were  not  very  great  and 
heinous."  * 

And  again :  "  A  slave,"  saith  Bingham,  "  was  not  allowed  to  enter 
himself  into  a  monastery,  or  take  orders,  without  the  consent  of  the 
master,  as  has  been  showed  in  other  places,  because  this  was  to  de 
prive  his  master  of  his  legal  right  of  service,  which,  by  the  original 
state  and  condition  of  slaves,  was  his  due :  and  the  Church  would 
not  be  accessory  to  such  frauds  and  injustice,  but  rather  discouraged 
them,  by  prohibitions  and  suitable  penalties  laid  upon  them.''1 1 

This  learned  author  died,  as  you  know,  in  A.D.  1723,  a  hundred 
3'ears  before  the  rise,  in  England,  of  the  modern  abolition  fever.  Pie 
regarded  the  subject,  therefore,  in  the  old  and  familiar  light  of  the 
Scriptures  and  the  Church,  and  had  no  idea  that,  in  the  course  of  a 
century  and  a  half,  the  maintenance  of  those  views  would  be  con 
demned  as  "  unworthy  of  any  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,"  by  a  bishop 
and  a  long  train  of  clergy,  and  branded  with  their  sentence  of  "  in 
dignant  reprobation." 

*  Ib.  vol.  ii.  p.  5T6.  fib.  vol.  vi.  p.  197-8. 


120  MELANCTHON. 


CHAPTER    XIII. 

RIGHT  REVEKEND  BROTHER  :  It  is  now  time  to  adduce  the  next 
class  of  witnesses,  namely,  the  divines  and  commentators  since  the 
Reformation  in  the  sixteenth  century,  who  will  all  demonstrate  the 
same  tr\ith  on  which  I  stand,  and  thus,  as  I  trust,  condemn  your  act 
of  condemnation. 

Beginning  with  Melancthon,  the  famous  colleague  of  Luther,  and 
one  of  the  wisest  and  best  men  of  his  age,  I  shall  present  to  you  his 
comment  on  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  Paul's  first  epistle  to  Timothy, 
44  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yoke  count  their  o\vn  mas 
ters  worthy  of  all  honor,"  etc. 

"  In  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  chapter,"  saith  Melancthon,  "  he 
gives  a  command  to  slaves,  where  the  young  should  remember  that 
the  common  rule  is  confirmed  which  is  so  often  repeated,  that  the 
Gospel  does  not  abolish  the  established  order  and  polity,  but  preaches 
of  other  things,  namely,  of  eternal  good,  eternal  justice,  and  eternal 
life,  which  God  produces  in  the  hearts  of  men,  whom,  nevertheless, 
He  wills,  in  this  mortal  life,  to  be  subject  to  that  order  which,  ac 
cording  to  the  will  of  God,  is  suitable  to  corporal  life.  He  wills  us 
to  be  sustained  with  meat  and  drink,  He  wills  lawful  marriage  and 
progeny,  He  wills  the  ordinary  consociation  of  the  human  race,  the 
distinction  of  dominions,  the  defense  of  imperial  government,  con 
tracts,  laws,  judgments,  punishments.  So  here  we  see  that  slavery 
is  approved,  such  as  was  tlien  laid  down  in  the  laws.  For  it  is  pro 
fitable  both  to  consciences  and  to  peace  that  we  should  understand 
this  doctrine  concerning  the  approbation  of  political  order"  (59) 

From  this  sound  and  conservative  sentence  of  Melancthon,  I  pro 
ceed  to  his  no  less  celebrated  contemporary,  Calvin,  whose  opinions 
were  for  a  long  while  regarded  as  of  the  highest  human  authority, 
not  only  by  the  reformed  Christians  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  gen 
erally,  but  specially  by  the  Church  of  England  herself.  This  is  his 
comment  on  the  same  passage,  viz. : 


CALVIN.  121 

"As  every  man  is  disposed,  with  a  false  estimate,  to  arrogate  su 
periority  to  himself,  there  is  no  one  who  bears  with  equanimity  that 
others  should  govern  him.  Those  who  can  not  avoid  the  necessity, 
do  indeed  unwillingly  obey  their  superiors :  but  inwardly  they  fret 
and  feel  indignant,  as  if  they  thought  some  injury  was  done  to  them. 
All  such  disputations,  however,  the  Apostle^  cuts  off  with  one  word, 
when  he  exacts  a  witting  subjection  from  all  who  are  under  the  yoke. 
For  he  shows  that  they  were  not  to  inquire  whether  they  were  worthy 
of  such,  fortune,  or  of  a  letter  one;  because  it  was  enough  that  they 
were  bound  in  that  condition.'1''  (60) 

In  his  commentary  on  the  latter  part  of  the  verse,  "that  the  name 
of  God  be  not  blasphemed,"  this  eminent  reformer  and  divine  pro 
ceeds  as  follows : 

•"  We  are  always  more  ingenious  than  is  fit,  in  defense  of  our  own 
accommodation.  Thus,  when  the  slaves  had  unbelieving  masters 
the  objection  was  at  hand,  that  it  was  shameful  for  those  who  served 
the  devil  to  have  dominion  over  the  children  of  God.  But  Paul,  on 
the  contrary,  returns  the  argument  that  even  unbelieving  masters 
must  be  obeyed,  lest  the  name  of  God  and  His  Gospel  should  be 
blasphemed,  as  if  the  Gospel  made  those  to  be  contumacious  and 
stubborn  who  ought  to  be  subject  to  others."  (61) 
^  And  in  his  introduction  to  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Philemon,  he 
gives  this  passage : 

"  How  great  was  the  elevation  of  Paul's  spirit,  although  it  may  be 
better  perceived  in  his  more  weighty  writings,  is  also  witnessed  in 
this  epistle,  in  which,  treating  an  argument  otherwise  humble  and 
abject,  he  raises  it  sublimely  to  God.  Sending  lack  \again  to  his 
master  a  slave  who  was  a  fugitive  and  a  thief,  he  asks  that  he  may 
be  forgiven."  (62) 

I  invite  your  attention  next  to  the  commentary  on  this  same  epis 
tle  to  Philemon,  which  we  have  in  Pool's  Synopsis  Criticorum      I 
need  not  inform  you  that  this  belongs  to  the  Presbyterian  school   as 
it  is  extracted  from  the  continental  writers  who  had  no  episcopacy. 
In  the  introduction  to  the  commentaiy,  we  read  the  following  : 
"  This  epistle  is  written  by  Paul  in  a  new  style,  and  alone  deserves 
to  be  called,  truly  and  properly,  a  letter.  '  Its  utility  is  manifold      It 
admonishes  us,  first,  that  no  one  is  to  be  despised,  however  abject 
his  condition  ;  second,  that  we  should  not  despair  of  the  capacity  of 
slaves  ;  third,  that  slaves,  believing  in  Christ,  are  not  on  that  ac 


122 

count  to  "be  made  free,  or  taken  away  from  unwilling  masters ; 
fourth,  what  is  the  office  of  a  bishop,  as  well  towards  inferiors  as 
towards  the  more  noble.  The  motive  of  writing  this  letter  was  that 
the  Apostle  might  reconcile  the  slave  to  his  master.  Which,  as  it 
seemed  difficult,  the  master  having  the  most  just  cause  to  be  of 
fended — since  the  slave  had  fled,  as  it  is  believed,  with  stolen  pro 
perty — he  (St.  Paul)  approaches  him  (Philemon)  with  all  the  art  of 
oratory.  If  there  is  any  thing  to  be  admired  in  the  line  of  per 
suasiveness,  certainly  it  is  this  epistle."  (63) 

From  the  same  work  I  take  another  and  very  precise  comment  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  6:5,  "  Servants,  be  obedient  to  your 
masters,"  etc. 

"  The  Apostle  does  not  take  away  the  custom  then  established  of 
using  slaves,  for  it  has  its  advantages,  and  it  is  lawful  to  use  it 
rightly.  He  teaches  that  Christian  liberty  is  consistent  with  polit 
ical  slavery,  and  that  political  arrangements  are  neither  taJcenaway 
nor  changed  ly  Christ"  (64) 

Another  important  comment  occurs  in  Pool's  Synopsis  on  1  Cor. 
V  :  21  :  "Art  thou  called,  being  a  servant?  care  not  for  it,  but  if 
thou  mayest  be  made  free,  use  it  rather."  That  is,  saith  the  com 
mentator,  "  Use  servitude:  rather  serve,  for  the  sake  of  greater  good, 
namely,  for  thine  own  exercise,  and  the  salvation  of  thy  master. 
Syrus  thus  renders  this  text :  *  But  even  if  thou  art  able  to  become 
free,  (meaning,  by  thine  own  arts  and  fraud,)  choose  rather  to  remain 
in  slavery?  To  this  sense  the  following  consolatory  reason  is  most 
accordant :  *  For  he  who  is  called,  ~being  a  slave,  is  the  Lord's  free 
man.1  Nevertheless  he  does  not  will  this,  that  they  should  prefer 
slavery  to  freedom  when  freedom  is  spontaneously  offered  by  the 
master,  but  that  they  should  prefer  it  to  an  illegitimate  freedom,  by 
flight  or  fraud."  (65) 


POOL'S  SYNOPSIS.  123 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

REVEREND  BROTHER  :  It  would  be  less  laborious  to  myself, 
and  probably  more  agreeable  to  you,  if  I  should  limit  my  quotations 
to  a  few  of  the  more  important  passages  of  the  Commentators.  But 
I  am  pledged  to  make  thorough  work  of  my  undertaking,  as  I  have 
to  deal  with  a  widely  spread  and  popular  error.  And  therefore  I 
shall  here  commence  with  all  the  texts  cited  in  the  Bible  View  of 
Slavery,  and  prove,  beyond  the  possibility  of  any  honest  doubt,  that 
[  have  given  them  the  settled  and  established  interpretation,  by 
which  you  were  bound,  as  well  as  myself,  when  you  were  admitted 
to  the  ministry. 

The  list  of  commentators  embraces  Pool's  Synopsis,  Patrick,  Lowth 
and  Whitby,  Gill,  Henry,  Scott,  the  Comprehensive  Commentary 
D'Oyley  and  Mant,  Clark,  and  on  the  New  Testament,  Davenant' 
Hammond,  Doddridge,  McKnight,  Wordsworth,  and  Alford.    Reckon 
ing  Melancthon  for  the  Lutherans,  the  others  will  represent  the 
Presbyterians,  the  Baptists,  the  Methodists,  and  the  Congre-ational- 
ists,  as  well  as  the  Protestant  Episcopalians.     The  Letters  on  Slavery 
by  the  late  learned  Bishop  England,  will  next  be  cited  for  the  Church 
of  Rome.     And  no  one  pretends  to  doubt  the  opinions  of  the  Church 
of  Russia  and   the  Oriental   Christians.     Thus   you  will  have  the 
whole  of  Christendom,  up  to  the  time  of  your  ordination,  and  beyond 
it,  in  support  of  Scriptural  truth,  which  I  trust  will  be  quite  enough 
for  my  justification.     The  voice  of  the  entire  Catholic  (or  universal) 
Church,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania  with  his 
hundred  and  sixty-four  clergymen  on  the  other,  will  then  present  a 
contrast  which  should  convert  the  most  zealous  ultra-abolitionist, 
unless  he  be  determined  to  scorn  alike  the  plain  sense  of  the  Bible' 
and  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  its  chief  expounders,  for  eighteen' 
hundred  years  together. 

Beginning  with  the  prophecy  of  Noah,  let  us  look  at  the  comment 
ary  in  Pool's  Synopsis,  Gen.  9  :  25  :  "Cursed  be  Canaan,"  etc. 


124  POOL'S  SYNOPSIS. 

"  Some  read  here  "^  the  father  of  Canaan.  So  is  the  Arabic 
version,  as  it  is  twice  expressed  a  little  before.  Others  accept  Ca 
naan.  That  this  people  was  cursed  is  shown  by  the  event.  Hence 
it  is  inferred  with  probability  that  he  was  the  companion  of  his  fath 
er's  iniquity.  But  Ham  was  not  exempt  from  the  curse,  because  his 
son  was  named,  as  Shem  was  blessed  in  the  next  verse,  although  God 
is  named,  and  Jacob  is  said  to  have  blessed  Joseph,  Gen.  48  :  15, 
when  he  blessed  his  children,  v.  16.  For  the  parent  is  punished  in 
his  children,  being  conscious  of  the  sin,  and  perhaps  both  its  author 
and  exhibitor,  as  the  Hebrew  doctors  and  Theodoret  explain  the 
subject.  Some  writers  remark  that  Noah  cursed  the  posterity  of 
flam,  but  that  Moses,  omitting  the  other  sons  of  Ham,  specified  Ca 
naan  individually,  because  he  wished  only  to  record  those  things 
which  might  strengthen  the  Israelites  and  make  them  more  ready  to 
take  possession  of  the  promised  land  of  Canaan."  (66) 

Here  we  have  the  result  of  Pool's  authorities,  which  substantially 
agrees  with  the  opinion  of  Bishop  Newton,  already  set  forth  in  the 
third  chapter. 

The  phrase  "  servant  of  servants"  in  the  malediction  of  Noah,  is 
rendered  "slave  of  slaves"  by  Pool,  that  is,  the  lowest  and  most  vile 
of  slaves.  (67) 

On  the  text  in  Gen.  17  :  12,  where  Abraham  is  commanded  to  cir 
cumcise  those  who  were  born  in  the  house,  and  also  those  who  were 
bought  with  money  of  any  stranger,  the  same  work  gives  us  the  fol 
lowing  opinions,  viz. : 

"  The  uncircumcised  man  could  live  in  the  land  of  the  Hebrews, 
under  good  laws,  but  not  in  the  house  of  an  Israelite,  lest  his  ex 
ample  might  corrupt  the  people.  And  the  question  arises  whether 
the  servants  bought  with  money  could  be  compelled  to  submit  to 
circumcision.  Many,  from  this  text,  affirm  that  they  could.  For, 
first,  the  slave  is  the  property  of  the  master.  Second.  The  language 
is  that  of  command,  which  would  be  destroyed  if  you  understand  it 
as  depending  on  the  will  of  the  slave.  Third.  If  it  were  otherwise, 
there  would  be  no  distinction  between  the  hireling  and  the  slave,  for 
the  hireling  was  permitted  (not  commanded)  to  be  circumcised. 
(Exod.  12 :  44.)  Others,  however,  deny  these  conclusions.  They  think 
that  no  adult  slave  was  obliged  to  be  circumcised,  nor  his  children, 
unless  he  willingly  consented.  For  otherwise  he  would  be  placed  under 


POOL'S  SYNOPSIS.  125 

a  necessity  of  sinning,  and  ordered  to  be  a  hypocrite.  Nor  would  such 
a  circumcision  have  been  a  sacrament  of  the  divine  covenant,  which 
can  only  be  embraced  by  the  willing.  Moreover,  true  religion  ought 
to  persuade  rather  than  compel.  Maimonides  thus  explains  it,  when, 
treating  of  circumcision,  ch.  1,  sect.  6,  he  saith,  ' If 'any  one  bought 
an  adult  slave  from  the  Cushites  who  refused  to  le  circumcised,  he 
ought  to  l>e  sold  to  the  Cushites  again."  (68) 

I  have  quoted  this  passage  mainly  in  order  to  prove  that  the  Is 
raelites,  according  to  Maimonides,  the  highest  Jewish  authority,  did 
not  confine  their  purchases  of  slaves  to  the  posterity  of  Canaan,  but 
included  the  other  progeny  of  Ham,  viz.,  the  Cushites,  even  as 
Abraham  held  Hagar,  the  Egyptian,  descended  from  Mizraim,  an 
other  son  of  Ham,  as  a  slave  to  his  wife,  Sarah.  These  facts  give 
additional  force  to  the  opinion  of  Bishop  Newton,  showing  how  the 
Jews  themselves  understood  the  prophecy  of  Noah. 

In  the  commentary  of  Pool  on  the  Ten  Commandments,  which 
contain,  by  preeminence,  the  moral  law,  bound  by  our  own  Seventh 
Article  upon  all  Christians,  there  are  two  passages,  one  on  the  fourth 
and  the  other  on  the  tenth,  which  are  worth  your  notice. 

Exodus  20  :  10,  where  the  Almighty  commands  the  Sabbath-day 
to  be  kept  holy,  our  author  translates  "thy  man-servant,"  by  the 
proper  term,  "  thy  slave,"  and  adds  this  comment,  "  Nor  shalt  thou 
enjoin  an}^  labors  to  them,"  (the  slaves,)  "  nor  suffer  them  to  work. 
This  is  to  be  understood  of  those  who  were  not  Jews,  for  the  Jews 
were  prohibited  from  work  by  the  words  preceding."  (69) 

The  same  chapter,  v.  17,  contains  the  Tenth  Commandment,  which 
forbids  coveting  the  "man-servant  and  the  maid-servant."  And 
here  our  commentator  gives  this  interpretation, ,  viz.  :  "  By  these 
words  of  the  law  the  dominion  and  property  of  those  things  which 
it  is  not  permitted  to  covet  are  thoroughly  estallislied,  as  also  slav 
ery  and  the  power  of  the  master"  (70) 

If  it  pleased  the  All-Wise  and  Supreme  Lawgiver  to  sanction  the 
institution  of  slavery  in  two  of  the  commands  issued  from  Mount 
Sinai,  and  engraved  on  the  tables  of  stone  by  the  hand  of  God,  that 
fact  alone  should  be  conclusive,  to  every  man  who  professes  to  be 
lieve  the  Bible,  that  there  was  no  sin  necessarily  involved  in  it. 

I  turn  next  to  the  commentary  of  Pool,  on  that  famous  verse,  Deut. 
23  :  15,  which  the  ultra-abolitionist  is  never  weary  of  quoting,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  servant  which  is  escaped  from 


126  POOL'S  SYNOPSIS. 

his  master  unto  thee,"  etc.  "  He  speaks,"  saith  Pool,  "  of  a  foreign 
master.  Thus  the  land  of  Israel  becomes  an  asylum.  Understand 
it  as  referring  to  those  slaves  who  fled  to  the  Israelites  from  heathen 
masters,  on  account  of  their  tyranny,  for  the  sake  of  embracing  Ju 
daism"  (71)  This,  which  is  the  only  rational  interpretation,  would 
evidently  give  no  warrant  for  refusing  obedience  to  the  Constitution 
and  the  law  of  Congress,  in  the  case  of  fugitive  slaves,  unless  two 
facts  could  first  be  clearly  established,  first,  that  they  had  escaped 
from  &  foreign  land,  and  secondly,  that  their  masters  were  heathen. 

The  text  in  Exodus,  21 :  16,  which  forbids  man-stealing,  is  inter 
preted  to  apply  to  Israelites  only.  "  He  that  stealeth  a  man"  "name 
ly,"  saith  Pool,  "  an  Israelite,  as  appears  from  Deut.  24 :  7,  whom 
any  Jew,  by  force  or  by  fraud,  should  ~bring  into  slavery,  and  sell  to 
the  Gentiles"  (72)  You  will  find,  before  I  conclude  my  labor,  that 
this  law  of  Moses,  so  constantly  perverted  by  the  school  of  ultra- 
abolitionism,  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  case  of  the  Jewish 
slaves,  but  was  designed  to  protect  the  liberty  of  the  chosen  people, 
lest  any  should  imitate  the  sons  of  Jacob  who  sold  their  brother 
Joseph  to  the  Midianites. 

I  shall  only  add  one  quotation  more  from  Pool,  where  the  book  of 
Ezra  states  the  numbers  of  the  Israelites,  who  returned  from  their 
captivity  under  the  decree  of  Cyrus,  at  forty-two  thousand  three 
hundred  and  sixty,  "  besides  their  servants  and  their  maids,  of  whom 
there  were  seven  thousand  three  hundred  and  thirty-seven."  Ezra, 
2:  64—5.  On  this  passage,  our  commentator  saith:  "Behold  the 
poor  fortune  of  the  captives,  when  so  many  thousands  had  no  more 
slaves  than  these."  (73) 

But  I  doubt  net  that  you  have  had  enough  of  Pool's  Synopsis, 
though  it  gives  the  cream  of  the  best  European  commentators  up  to 
the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  has  been  the  main  guide 
of  all  who  have  succeeded  him.  I  shall  therefore  pass  on  to  another 
work  of  the  highest  reputation,  especially  among  Episcopalians,  which 
will  furnish  further  evidence  to  confirm  the  truth. 


BISHOP  PATRICK.  127 


CHAPTER  XY. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  I  need  not  inform  you  that  the  Com 
mentary  of  Patrick,  Lowth,  and  Whitby  stands  in  the  front  rank  of 
authority,  in  our  mother  Church  of  England,  and  in  our  own.  Si 
mon  Patrick,  Bishop  of  Chichester,  and  afterwards  of  Ely,  was  dis 
tinguished  for  learning,  piety,  and  talent.  Robert  Lowth,  successively 
Bishop  of  St.  David's,  Oxford,  and  London,  was  little  less  eminent. 
And  Dr.  "Whitby,  for  erudition  and  judgment,  had  few  equals  in  his 
day.  Let  us  next,  therefore,  attend  to  their  testimony  on  the  texts 
to  which  I  have  referred. 

On  the  prophecy  of  Noah,  Gen.  9  :  22-7,  this  Commentary  states 
it  as  the  opinion  of  the  Hebrew  doctors,  "  that  Canaan  first  saw  Noah 
in  this  indecent  posture,  and  made  sport  of  it  to  his  father,  who 
was  so  far  from  reproving  him,  as  he  ought  to  have  done,  that  he  also 
did  the  same."  "In  the  street,  publicly  before  the  people,  he  pro 
claimed  his  father's  shame  and  mocked  at  it.  For  Ham  is  gener 
ally  thought  to  have  been  an  impious  man,  and  some  take  him  to  have 
been  the  first  inventor  of  idols  after  the  flood." 

Verse  25  :  Cursed  tie  Canaan,  etc.  "If  what  I  have  said,"  contin 
ues  Bishop  Patrick,  "  be  allowed,  it  makes  it  easy  to  give  an  account 
why  Canaan  is  cursed  rather  than  Ham,  because  he  was  first  guilty. 
Ham,  indeed,  \vas  punished  in  him ;  but  he  had  other  sons,  on  whom 
the  punishment  did  not  fall,  but  only  on  this.  For  which  I  can  find 
no  other  reason  so  probable  as  that  before  named.  Which,  if  it  be . 
not  allowed,  we  must  have  recourse  to  a  harsh  interpretation ;  and 
J>y  Canaan,  understand  Canaan's  father,  as  some  do." 

And  Canaan  shall  ~be  his  servant.  "As  the  blessing  promised  to 
Abraham  was  not  fulfilled  in  his  own  person,  but  in  his  posterity 
many  ages  after  his  death ;  s.o  this  curse  upon  Cham  did  not  take 
place  till  the  same  time  ;  the  execution  of  God's  curse  upon  the  one 
being  his  conferring  a  blessing  on  the  other." 

"  It  is  observed  by  Campanella  that  '  none  are  descended  from  Cham 


128  BISHOP  PATRICK. 

but  slaves,  and  tyrants,  who  are  indeed  slaves.'  But  Mr.  Mede's  ob 
servation  is  more  pertinent.  '  There  hath  never  yet  been  a  son  of 
Cham  that  hath  shaken  a  sceptre  over  the  head  of  Japheth.  Shem 
hath  subdued  Japheth,  and  Japheth  subdued  Shem,  but  Cham  never 
subdued  either." 

Here  we  have  a  different  opinion,  in  some  respects,  from  that  which 
is  preferred  by  Bishop  Newton  and  others.  But  the  commentator 
gives  the  worst  character  to  Ham  ;  and  refers  to  the  other  interpreta 
tion  as  adopted  by  some,  while  he  proposes  his  own  with  great 
modesty,  and  does  not  mention  the  Arabic  version.  Taking  the 
whole,  indeed,  together,  there  is  no  serious  conflict  between  these 
commentators. 

We  come  next  to  Abraham's  history,  Gen.  12  :  5 :  where  Bishop 
Patrick  interprets  "  all  the  souls  they  had  gotten"  to  mean,  "  All  the 
slaves  born  in  their  house  or  bought  with  their  money."  And  he  re 
fers  to  this  in  his  comment  upon  Gen.  14  :  14,  where  we  read  that 
Abraham  " armed  his  trained  servants"  in  these  words:  "Abram 
drew  forth  a  select  number  of  his  servants,  whom  he  had  instructed 
to  handle  arms  in  case  of  any  assault  by  robbers  or  injurious  neigh 
bors.  We  read  before  (12  :  5)  of  the  servants  (slaves)  they  brought 
with  them  from  Haran ;  and  now  they  were  more  increased,  so  that 
he  might  well  make  a  little  army  out  of  them."  It  is  plain,  there 
fore,  that  these  three  hundred  and  eighteen  servants  were  home-born 
slaves,  according  to  this  commentator. 

In  his  remarks  on  Gen.  IT  :  13,  he  is  still  more  express,  as  follows : 
Verse  13.  He  that  is  lorn  in  thy  house,  or  bought  with  money, 
must  needs  ~be  circumcised.  "Not  whether  they  would  or  no,  for  men 
were  not  to  be  compelled  to  religion,  which  had  been  a  profanation  of 
this  covenant.  But  Abraham  was  to  persuade  them  to  it ;  and  if 
they  consented  not,  to  keep  them  no  longer  in  his  house,  but  to  sell 
.them  to  some  other  people.  So  Maimonides  expounds  it,  in  his  book 
of  Circumcision,  chap.  1,  which  is  true  both  of  servants  born  in 
the  house,  and  bought  with  money ;  but  as  for  the  children  of  these 
slaves,  they  were  to  be  circumcised  whether  their  parents  would  or 
no ;  because  they  were  the  possession  of  their  masters,  not  of  their 
parents.  For  which  cause,  when  the  parents  were  set  free,  their  child- 
ren  were  left  behind,  as  their  master's  goods.  Exod.  21  :  4." 

Turning  next  to  Bishop  Patrick's  Comment  on  the  Tenth  Com 
mandment,  Exodus  20  : 17,  Thou  shalt  not  covet,  we  find  these  words, 


BISHOP  PATRICK.  129 

"  nor  Ms  man  servant  nor  Ms  maid  servant,  etc.,  which  are  his  PRIN 
CIPAL  GOODS." 

On  Exodus  21  :  4  :  If  Ms  master  have  given  Mm  a  wife,  this  learned 
commentator  saith  as  follows :  "  Unto  such  a  servant  as  this,  who 
was  sold  by  the  Court  of  Judgment,  his  master  might  give  a  Gentile 
maid  to  wife  (and  no  other  Hebrew  but  such  as  he  might  marry  a 
Gentile)  that  he  might  beget  -children  of  her,  who  were  to  oe  the  mas 
ter's  servants  or  slaves  forever  " 

"  The  wife  and  children  shall  le  Ms  master's.  For  the  wife  was  a 
slave  as  well  as  himself  when  he  married  her.  And  she  was  given  to 
wife,  merely  that  he  might  beget  slaves  of  her,  who  therefore  continued 
with  the  master,  as  well  as  their  mother,  when  the  man  had  Ms  liberty, 
for  they  were  not  so  much  Ms,  as  his  master's  goods  ;  who  had  such 
a  power  over  them,  that  he  might  circumcise  them,  as  he  did  his  own 
children,  without  their  consent." 

Here  we  see  that  the  separation  of  the  family  was  not  considered 
so  awful  a  thing  under  the  Jewish  system  of  slavery.  Nor,  indeed, 
can  one  help  wondering  at  the  indignant  reproaches  of  many  philan 
thropic  persons,  on  account  of  the  same  difficulty  in  the  Southern  in 
stitution.  For  we  all  know  that  our  free  families  separate  of  their 
own  accord  every  day,  on  the  slightest  inducements  of  advantage ; 
and  the  bonds  of  parental  and  filial  attachment  are  so  weak,  that  any 
personal  inclination  or  interest  suffices  to  break  them.  "So  general  is 
this  fact  that  I  doubt  whether  there  is  half  as  much  of  this  very  sepa 
ration  amongst  the  slaves  by  the  act  of  their  masters,  as  there  is 
amongst  freemen,  by  the  force  of  discontent,  the  love  of  change, 
cupidity,  and  ambition. 

But  let  us  not  digress  too  much  from  our  commentary,  where  the 
case  of  the  slave,  killed  by  his  master,  next  invites  attention. 

Exod.  21  :  20  :  If  a  man  smite  Ms  servant.  "  A  slave,"  saith 
Bishop  Patrick,  "  who  was  not  an  Israelite,  but  a  Gentile." 

He  shall  surely  ~be  punished.  "  With  death,  say  the  Hebrew  doctors, 
(in  Selden,  lib.  iv.,)  if  the  servant  died  while  he  was  beating  him  ;  for 
that  is  meant  by  dying  under  his  hand.  But  it  seems  more  likely  to 
me  that  he  was  to  be  punished  for  his  cruelty,  as  the  judge  who  ex 
amined  this  fact  thought  meet.  For  his  smiting  with  a  rod,  not  with 
a  sword,  was  a  sign  that  he  intended  only  to  correct  him,  not  to  kill 
him.  And  besides,  no  man  could  be  thought  to  be  willing  to  lose  his 
own  goods,  as  such  servants  were. 
4* 


130  BISHOP  PATEICK. 

Verse  21  :  Notwithstanding  if  Tie  continue  a  day  or  two.  "A 
day  and  a  night,  as  the  Hebrew  doctors  interpret  it." 

He  shall  not  be  punished.  "Because  it  might  be  presumed  he  did 
not  die  of  these  strokes." 

He  is  his  money.  "  His  death  was  a  loss  to  his  master,  who  there 
fore  might  well  be  judged  not  to  have  any  intention  to  kill  him,  and 
was  sufficiently  punished  by  losing  the  benefit  of  his  service." 

"We  come  now  to  the  Jubilee,  which  the  ultra-abolitionist  always 
quotes  as  a  proof  that  every  fiftieth  year  set  free  not  only  those  He 
brews  who  were  held  in  temporary  bondage,  but  also  the  slaves, 
without  any  exception.  No  error  could  be  more  grossly  inexcusable 
than  this.  But  let  us  look  at  the  judgment  of  Bishop  Patrick  upon 
the  question. 

Leviticus  25  :  10.  And  ye  shall  hallow  the  fiftieth  year,  and  pro 
claim  liberty  throughout  all  the  land  unto  all  the  inhabitants  there 
of.  "  That  is,"  saith  our  commentator,  to  all  the  children  of  Israel 
who  were  servants  ;  or  so  poor  that  they  had  sold  their  estates." 

And  ye  shall  return  every  man  to  his  possession.  "  Unto  his  field 
or  his  house,  which  his  poverty  had  forced  him  to  sell,  but  now  was 
restored  to  him  without  any  price,  because  they  were  not  sold  abso 
lutely  but  only  to  this  year.  By  which  means  the  estates  of  the 
Israelites  were  so  fixed,  that  no  family  could  ruin  itself  or  grow  too 
rich.  For  this  law  provided  against  such  changes,  revoking  once  in 
fifty  years  all  alienations,  and  setting  every  one  in  the  same  condition 
wherein  he  was  at  the  first." 

Y.  39.  And  if  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by  thee  be  waxen  poor, 
and  ~be  sold  unto  thee.  "  Some  were  sold  by  the  court  of  judgment 
when  they  had  committed  theft,  and  were  not  able  to  make  satisfac 
tion.  Others  were  sold  by  their  parents,  (Exod.  21  :  7,  8.)  But 
others  sold  themselves,  being  reduced  to  great  poverty,  notwithstand 
ing  the  alms  that  had  been  bestowed  upon  them.  And  of  such  the 
Hebrew  doctors  understand  these  words." 

Thou  shalt  not  compel  him  to  serve  as  a  bond-servant.  "As  a 
slave,  which  they  bought  of  other  nations  or  took  in  their  wars ;  over 
whom  they  had  an  absolute  dominion,  (as  they  had  over  their  goods 
and  cattle,)  and  might  bequeath  them  and  their  children  to  their  sons 
and  posterity  forever  (v.  45-6)  or  sell  them  and  their  children  at 
their  pleasure." 

Verse  40.   But  as  a  hired  servant  and  as  a  sojourner.    "  They  were 


BISHOP  PATRICK.  131 

to  treat  him  gently,  as  they  did  those  who  let  out  their  service  for 
wages,  for  a  certain  time,  and  then  were  at  their  own  disposal  again." 

And  shall  serve  thee  unto  the  year  of  Jubilee.  "  Beyond  which 
time  it  was  not  lawful  to  keep  him  in  service  ;  for  in  the  very  begin 
ning  of  this  year,  all  such  servants  were  dismissed." 

Verse  41.  And  then  shall  he  depart  from  thee,  loth,  he  and  his 
children  with  him.  "  His  master  to  whom  he  was  sold  might  keep 
him  till  the  Jubilee,  whereas  he  that  was  sold  by  the  court  of  judg 
ment  might  go  free,  if  he  pleased,  in  the  seventh  year  of  release." 
(Exod.  21  :  2.) 

Verse  42.  For  they  are  my  servants  which  I  brought  forth  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt.  "A  good  reason  why  they  should  not  be  treated 
like  slaves,  because  they  were  all  redeemed  by  God  out  of  the  slavery 
of  Egypt  into  a  state  of  perfect  liberty." 

Verse  44.  Both  thy  bondmen  and  thy  bondmaids  which  thou  shalt 
have,  shall  be  of  the  heathen.  "  If  they  would  have  any  slaves,  they 
were  to  be  such  of  other  nations  as  were  sold  to  them  or  were  taken 
by  them  in  their  wars.  Whence  the  very  name  of  mancipia  came, 
as  the  Roman  lawyers  tell  us,  quasi  manu  capti,  and  the  name  of 
scrvus  also,  which  signifies  one  who  was  saved  when  he  might  have 
been  killed." 

Verse  45.  Moreover  of  the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn 
among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy.  "  Whether  they  were  perfect  pro 
selytes  by  circumcision  or  only  proselytes  of  the  gate,  their  children 
were  not  exempted  from  being  made  slaves,  if  they  sold  them  to  the 
Hebrews." 

And  of  the  families  that  are  with  you,  which  they  begat  in  your 
land.  "  If  any  of  their  family  or  kindred,  as  the  Seventy  translate 
it,  had  begat  children  in  Judea,  and  would  sell  them,  the  Jews  might 
make  a  purchase  of  them." 

They  shall  be  your  possession.  "Become  your  proper  goods  and 
continue  with  you,  as  your  lands  do,  unless  they  have  their  liberty 
granted  to  them.  And  the  first  sort  of  proselytes  obtained  it  three 
ways  ;  either  by  purchasing  it  themselves  or  by  their  friends  ;  or  by 
being  dismissed  by  their  master,  by  a  writing  under  his  hand  ;  or  in 
the  case  mentioned  in  Exod.  21  :  26,  when  the  loss  of  an  eye  or  a 
tooth  by  the  master's  severity  serve  only  for  examples  of  other  maims, 
which  procured  such  a  servant  his  liberty.  But  the  second  sort  of 
proselytes  did  not  obtain  their  liberty,  if  we  may  believe  the  Hebrew 


132  BISHOP   PATRICK. 

doctors,  by  this  last  means,  but  only  by  the  two  first.  And  the  year 
of  Jubilee  gave  no  servants  of  either  sort  their  liberty. 

Verse  46.  And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  child 
ren  after  you.  "  To  whom  they  might  bequeath  the  very  bodies  of 
them  and  their  children." 

To  inherit  them  for  a  possession.  "  That  they  might  have  the 
same  power  and  dominion  over  them  that  they  had  over  their  lands, 
goods,  or  cattle." 

They  shall  be  your  bondmen  forever.  "Not  have  the  benefit  of  the 
year  of  Jubilee,  but  be  your  slaves  as  long  as  they  live  ;  unless 
they,  by  any  of  the  means  before  mentioned,  obtain  their  liberty." 

I  have  thus  shown,  clearly  and  distinctly,  that  according  to  this 
learned  commentator,  who  was  particularly  conversant  with  the  writ 
ings  of  the  Jews,  the  slaves  of  the  heathen  races,  notwithstanding 
they  were  proselytes,  were  not  set  free  in  the  year  of  Jubilee,  that 
privilege  being  entirely  confined  to  the  posterity  of  Jacob,  the  chosen 
people.  And  next  I  shall  set  before  you  the  judgment  of  Bishop  Pat 
rick  upon  that  other  text,  which  is  equally  misrepresented  by  the 
teachers  of  ultra-abolitionism. 

Deut.  23  :  15.  Thou  shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  servant 
which  is  escaped  from  his  master  unto  thee.  "  The  Hebrew  doctors 
understand  this  of  a  servant  of  another  nation  who  was  become  a 
Jew  ;  whom  his  master,  if  he  went  to  dwell  out  of  Judea,  might  not 
carry  along  with  him  against  his  will ;  and  if  he  fled  from  him  when 
he  had  carried  him,  he  might  not  be  delivered  to  him,  but  suffered  to 
dwell  in  the  land  of  Israel.  Which  they  understand  also  of  a  servant 
that  fied  from  his  master  out  of  any  of  the  countries  of  the  Gen 
tiles  into  the  land  of  Israel,  ichich  was  to  be  a  safe  refuge  to  him." 
(See  Selden,  lib.  vi.) 

The  latter  part  of  the  above  is  the  explanation  given  in  the  Bible 
View  of  Slavery,  where  it  is  shown  that  the  distorted  interpretation 
of  the  ultra-abolitionist  is  a  sheer  absurdity. 

And  now  I  come  to  the  other  favorite  text  about  man-stealing. 
Deut.  24  :  7.  If  any  man  be  found  stealing  any  of  his  brethren  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  makeih  merchandise  of  him  or  selleth  him, 
then  that  thief  shall  die. 

The  comment  of  Bishop  Patrick  refers  to  a  similar  law  in  ancient 
Athens,  by  which  if  any  one  stole  a  man,  "death  should  be  his  pun 
ishment,  as  Xenophon  reports  it.  And  he  was  accounted  a  man- 


BISHOP  PATRICK.  133 

ttealer,  who,  not  only  by  force  or  by  fraud,  carried  away  a  freeman 
and  sold  him  for  a  slave,  or  suppressed  him  ;  but  lie  who  inveigled 
away  another  man's  servant,  and  persuaded  Mm  to  run  away,  or  con 
cealed  such  a  fugitive.  (As  Sam.  Petitus  observes,  out  of  Pollux  and 
others,  lib.  vii.  Leges  Atticas,  tit.  5.  p.  533.)  Which  makes  me 
think,"  continues  our  commentator,  "not  only  he  that  stole  one  of 
his  brethren  of  the  children  of  Israel,  but  he  that  stole  a  proselyte 
of  any  sort,  or  the  servant  of  a  stranger,  was  liable  to  the  punishment 
mentioned  in  this  law  of  Moses."- 

I  commend  this  passage,  my  Right  Reverend  Brother,  to  your  spe 
cial  attention,  because  it  has  a  double  application  against  the  doctrine 
of  the  ultra-abolitionist.  By  that  doctrine  we  are  told  that,  accord 
ing  to  the  Mosaic  law,  the  deadly  sin  of  man-stealing  was  committed 
by  those  who  first  brought  the  savage  negro  from  the  slave-coast  of 
Africa,  and  continues  to  attach  to  the  slave-owner  of  the  present  day, 
whose  title  is  no  better  than  the  original.  And  by  the  same  doctrine 
we  are  assured,  that  it  is  laudable  and  virtuous  to  induce  a  slave  to 
run  away  from  his  master,  and  to  conceal  the  fugitive,  if  necessary 
to  insure  his  escape.  But  Bishop  Patrick  repudiates  both  these  as 
sumptions,  showing,  with  respect  to  the  first,  that  the  law  of  Moses 
forbade  the  stealing  of  an  Israelite,  and  said  nothing  of  the  heathen 
barbarian ;  and,  with  respect  to  the  second,  that  he  who  inveigled  a 
proselyte,  being  a  bond-servant,  and  "  persuaded  him  to  run  away 
from  his  master,  or  concealed  such  a  fugitive,"  was  so  far  from  the 
performance  of  a  meritorious  action,  that  he  was  "  liable  to  the  pun 
ishment"  mentioned  in  this  very  law.  If  Bishop  Patrick  had  foreseen 
the  reckless  style  in  which  our  ultra-abolitionists  pervert  this  text  at 
the  present  day,  he  could  hardly  have  written  a  more  apposite  con 
demnation. 

Let  us  now  pass  on  to  the  texts  in  the  New  Testament,  and  ex 
amine  what  the  same  commentary  pronounces  concerning  them. 
And  here  we  have  it  arranged  in  the  manner  of  a  paraphrase. 

Eph.  6:5:  "  Servants  be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your  masters, 
(though  they  be  only  so,)  according  to  the  flesh,  (the  spirit  being  im 
mediately  subject  to  God  alone,)  with  fear  (of  displeasing  them)  and 
trembling  (lest  you  should  justly  incur  their  anger,  serving  them)  in 
singleness  of  your  heart,  as  (knowing  that  in  thus  serving  them  you 
do  service)  unto  Christ,  (who  requires  this  of  you,  whose  Gospel  you 
will  credit  by  your  sincere  obedience  to  your  masters  for  his  sake, 


134  WHITE  Y. 

Tit.  2  :  2,  and  whose  doctrine  you  will  blaspheme  by  your  disobedi 
ence,  under  pretense  of  any  Christian  libert}r,  from  the  observance  of 
your  duty  to  them.  1  Tim.  6:1,  2.  9.  "  And,  ye  masters,  do  the 
same  things  to  them,  (show  the  like  good-will  to  and  concern  for 
them,)  forbearing  threatening,  (remitting  oft  the  evils  "which  you 
threaten  to  them,)  knowing  that  your  Master  also  is  in  heaven." 

Colos.  2  :  22  :  "  Servants,  obey  in  all  (lawful)  things  (those  who  are) 
your  masters  according  to  the  flesh."  Verse  25.  But  he  (of  you) 
that  doeth  wrong  (to  his  master)  shall  receive  (of  the  Lord,  punish 
ment)  for  the  wrong  which  he  hath  done,  and  there  is  no  respect  of 
persons  with  him." 

Ch.  3:1:  "Masters,  give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is  just 
and  equal,  knowing  that  you  also  have  a  Master  in  heaven,  (who, 
with  what  measure  ye  mete  to  others,  will  mete  to  you  again,  Matt. 
7 :  2,  and  deal  with  you,  his  servants,  as  }7ou  deal  with  yours.) " 

In  the  annotation  on  verse  25  of  the  second  chapter,  the  comment 
ator  saith  as  follows,  viz.  : 

Verse  25,  Respect  of  persons.  "Christ,  in  judging  men  at  the  last 
day,  will  have  no  respect  to  the  quality  or  external  condition  of  any 
man's  person ;  but  whether  he  be  bond  or  free,  he  shall  receive  re 
compense  for  the  good  that  Tie  hath  done,  in  obedience  to  him,  wheth 
er  he  be  master  or  servant,  he  shall  be  punished  for  the  wrong  that 
he  did  in  those  relations.  It  being  certain,  from  the  second  chapter, 
that  the  Judaizers  were  got  into  the  Church  of  Colosse,  and  that 
many  of  them  denied  that  the  Jews  ought  to  be  servants  to  any,  and 
the  Essenes  judging  all  servitude  unlawful,  this  might  be  the  reason 
why  here,  and  Titus  2,  the  Apostle  is  so  large  in  charging  this  duty 
on  servants." 

In  the  preface  to  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  Philemon,  the  comment 
ator  proceeds  as  follows  : 

"  First,  no  Christian,  though  of  the  meanest  sort,  is  to  be  contemn 
ed.  Christianity  makes  the  vilest  servant  both  profitable  and  worthy 
to  be  highly  loved  and  honored  by  persons  in  the  highest  dignity, 
Onesimus  being  by  the  Apostle  styled  his  son,  and  his  bowels." 

"Secondly.  Christianity  doth  not  impair  the  power  of  masters 
oner  their  servants,  or  give  any  authorit}r  to  them  who  convert  them 
to  use  them  as  their  servants,  without  leave  granted  from  their  mas 
ters." 


WHITBY.  135 

"  Thirdly.  Servants  ought  to  make  satisfaction  for  any  wrong  or 
injury  they  have  done  to  their  masters." 

"  Fourthly.  There  is  an  affection  due  from  the  master  to  a  profit 
able  servant." 

These  extracts  are  abundantly  sufficient  to  prove  the  substantial 
accordance  of  Patrick,  Lowth,  and  Whitby,  with  all  that  has  gone 
before. 


HENRY. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  commentary  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Matthew  Henry,  which  is  a  favorite  with  very  many,  may  next  be 
cited,  and  I  shall  make  several  extracts  from  it,  bearing  on  our  sub 
ject. 

On  Levit.  25  :  39,  etc.,  this  author  writes  as  follows  :  "  We  have 
here  the  laws  concerning  servitude.  First.  That  a  native  Israelite 
should  never  be  made  a  bondman  for  perpetuity.  If  he  was  sold  ftfr 
debt,*  or  for  a  crime,  by  the  house  of  judgment,  he  was  to  serve  but 
six  j^ears,  and  to  go  out  the  seventh.  That  was  appointed,  Exod. 
21  :  2.  But  if  he  sold  himself,  through  extreme  poverty,  having 
nothing  at  all  left  him  to  preserve  his  life,  and  if  it  was  to  one  of  his 
own  nation  that  he  sold  himself,  in  such  case  it  is  here  provided, 
first,  that  he  should  not  serve  as  a  'bond-servant,  nor  be  sold  wit'i  the 
sale  of  a  bondman,  that  is,  it  must  not  be  looked  upon  that  his  mas 
ter  that  bought  him  had  as  absolute  a  property  in  him  as  in  a  captive 
taken  in  war,  that  might  ~be  used,  sold,  and  bequeathed,  at  pleasure, 
as  much  as  a  man's  cattle  ;  no,  he  shall  serve  thee  as  a  hired  servant. 
Second.  That  he  should  not  be  ruled  with  rigor,  and  his  work  and 
usage  must  be  such  as  were  fitting  for  a  son  of  Abraham.  Third.  That 
at  the  year  of  jubilee  he  should  go  out  free,  he  and  his  children,  and 
should  return  to  his  own  family  and  possession." 

"But  the  Jews  might  purchase  bondmen  of  the  heathen  nations 
that  were  round  about  them,  or  of  those  strangers  that  sojourned 
among  them,  and  might  claim  a  dominion  over  them,  and  entail 
them  upon  their  families  as  an  inheritance,  for  the  year  of  jubilee 
should  give  no  discharge  to  them." 

I  turn  next  to  the  comment  on  Deut.  23 :  15,  where  the  precept 
occurs  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  servant  which 
is  escaped  from  his  master  unto  thee."  And  here  we  find  Matthew 
Henry  adopting  the  same  interpretation  which  we  have  already  seen 
in  the  other  commentaries — the  only  one  which  could  be  adopted 
with  any  sense  or  reason,  viz. : 


HENRY.  137 

"First.  The  land  of  Israel,"  saith  he,  "is  here  made  a  sanctuary, 
or  city  of  refuge,  for  servants  that  were  wronged  by  their  masters, 
and  fled  thither  for  shelter,  from  the  neighboring  countries,  v.  15-16. 
We  can  not  suppose  that  they  were  hereby  obliged  to  give  shelter  to 
all  the  unprincipled  men  that  ran  from  service ;  Israel  needed  not  (as 
Rome  at  first  did)  to  be  thus  peopled.  But,  first,  they  must  not  de 
liver  up  the  trembling  servant  to  his  enraged  master,  till  upon  trial 
it  appeared  that  the  servant  had  wronged  his  master,  and  was  justly 
liable  to  punishment.  Note,  it  is  an  honorable  thing  to  shelter  and 
protect  the  weak,  provided  they  be  not  wicked.  God  allows  his 
people  to  patronize  the  oppressed.  The  angel  bid  Hagar  return  to 
her  mistress,  and  St.  Paul  sent  Onesimus  back  to  his  master,  Phile 
mon,  because  they  had  neither  of  them  any  cause  to  go  away,  nor 
were  either  of  them  exposed  to  any  danger  in  returning.  But  the 
servant  here  is  supposed  to  escape,  that  is,  to  run  for  his  life  to  the 
people  of  Israel,  of  whom  he  had  heard  that  they  were  a  merciful 
people,  to  save  himself  from  the  fury  of  a  tyrant,  and  in  that  case, 
to  deliver  him  up,  is  to  throw  a  lamb  into  the  mouth  of  a  lion.'1'1 

"  Second.  If  it  appeared  that  the  servant  was  abused,  they  must 
not  only  protect  him,  but,  supposing  him  willing  to  embrace  their 
religion,  they  must  give  him  all  the  encouragement  that  might  be,  to 
settle  among  them.  Thus  would  he  soon  find  a  comfortable  differ 
ence  beticeen  the  land  of  Israel  and  other  lands,  and  would  choose  it 
to  be  his  rest  forever." 

Here  we  see,  1st,  That  this  commentator  properly  limits  the  pre 
cept  to  the  case  of  fugitive  slaves  "  from  the  neighboring  countries," 
namely,  foreigners,  and  therefore  it  could  have  no  application  to  the 
slaves  who  abscond  from  the  Southern  States,  because  those  States 
were  bound  with  the  rest  under  the  same  Constitution,  which  spe 
cially  provided  for  them. 

2.  We  see  that,  even  in  the  case  of  foreign  fugitives,  Henry  would 
have  the  Israelites  hear  the  master,  and  judge  whether  the  slave  had 
any  cause  to  justify  his  running  away.     And  if,  on  a  hearing,  it  ap 
peared  that  he  had  wronged  his  master,  and  was  justly  liable  to  pun 
ishment,  he  should  be  delivered  up  again. 

3.  We  see  that  the  commentator  refers  to  Hagar,  whom  the  angel 
sent  back  to  her  mistress,  and  to  Onesimus,  whom  St.  Paul  sent  back 
to  his  master  Philemon,  because  "  neither  of  them  had  any  cause  to 
run  away,  nor     ere  either  «f  them  exposed  to  any  danger  in  return- 


138  HENRY. 

ing."  And  the  kind  of  danger  to  which  Henry  refers  is  perfectly 
manifest  when  he  tells  us,  that  the  servant  is  "  supposed  to  run  for 
his  life"  to  save  himself  from  "  the  fury  of  a  tyrant"  in  which 
case,  "to  deliver  him  up  is  to  throw  a  lamb  into  the  mouth  of  a 
lion." 

4.  We  see,  lastly,  that  the  Israelites,  on  hearing  the  facts,  as  well 
on  the  part  of  the  master  as  on  the  part  of  the  fugitive,  would  be 
likely  to  decide  according  to  the  established  laws  of  servitude,  be 
cause  they  likewise  were  slaveholders,  and  would  therefore  be  suffi 
ciently  careful  to  pronounce  no  judgment  unfavorable  to  the  rights 
of  the  master,  or  likely  to  encourage  the  rebellion  of  slaves  against 
themselves. 

Thus  reasonably  interpreted,  it  needs  no  argument  to  show  that 
this  precept,  so  constantly  cited  by  the  ultra-abolitionists  as  an  ex 
cuse  for  violating  the  fugitive  slave  law,  has  not  the  slightest  appli 
cation  to  the  subject.  And  the  popular  perversion  of  it  to  such  a 
purpose  is  only  a  specimen  of  the  "  wresting  of  Scripture,"  which  is 
unhappily  so  common  at  this  day. 

The  text  in  Deut.  24  :  7,  which  forbids  man-stealing,  is  com 
mented  on  very  briefly  by  Dr.  Henry,  but  he  does  not  differ  from 
the  rest.  These  are  his  words,  viz. : 

"  This  was  a  very  heinous  offense,  for,  first,  it  was  robbing  the 
public  of  one  of  its  members ;  second,  it  was  taking  away  a  man's 
liberty,  the  liberty  of  a  free-born  Israelite,  which  was  next  in  value 
to  his  life  ;  third,  it  was  driving  a  man  out  from  the  inheritance  of 
the  land  (Israel)  to  the  privileges  of  which  he  was  entitled,  and  bid 
ding  him  go  serve  other  gods,  as  David  complains  against  Saul.  1  Sam. 
26:19." 

This  is  the  whole ;  but  brief  as  it  is,  we  see  that  Henry  considers 
the  law  as  only  applicable  to  the  case  of  stealing  and  selling  an  Israel 
ite  to  a  heathen  people. 

The  remarks  of  Cruden,  in  his  Concordance,  under  the  word 
"steal,"  are  very  fair,  viz. :  "Though  there  was  no  penalty  annexed 
to  the  law  forbidding  theft,"  saith  he,  "  except  restitution,  yet  to 
steal  away  a  freeman,  or  an  Hebrew,  and  to  reduce  him  to  the 
state  of  servitude,  was  punished  with  death.  Exod.  21  :  10.  The 
Jews  do  not  think  that  the  stealing  of  a  man  of  .any  other  nation  de 
serves  death,  but  only  the  theft  of  a  free  Hebrew.  If  it  be  a  stranger 
that  is  stole,  they  were  only  condemned  to  restitution.  They  found 


HENRY.  139 

this  distinction  upon  a  law  in  Deut.  24 :  7,  which  limits  this  law 
concerning  man-stealing :  If  a  man  be  found  stealing  any  of  his 
brethren  of  the  children  of  Israel;  which  exception  the  Septuagint 
andOnkelos  have  inserted  in  the  text  of  Exod.  21 : 16." 

On  the  passages  which  I  have  cited  from  the  New  Testament,  the 
commentary  of  Dr.  Henry  confirms  what  we  have  seen  in  the  others. 
Thus,  on  1  Cor.  7  :  21,  "Art  thou  called,  being  a  servant?  care  not 
for  it,  but  if  ihou  may  eat  be  made  free,  use  it  rather"  he  saith  :  "  It 
was  common  in  that  age  of  the  world,  for  many  to  be  in  a  state  of 
slavery,  bought  and  sold  for  money,  and  so  the  property  of  those 
who  purchased  them.  '  Now,'  says  the  Apostle,  '  art  thou  called, 
being  a  servant  ?  care  not  for  it?  Be  not  over-solicitous  about  it.  It 
is  not  inconsistent  with  thy  duty,  profession,  or  hopes,  as  a  Christ 
ian.  Yet,  if  thou  mayest  be  made  free,  use  it  rather.  (21)  There 
are  many  conveniences  in  a  state  of  freedom,  above  that  of  servitude  ; 
therefore,  liberty  is  the  more  eligible  state.  But  men's  outward  con 
dition  does  not  let  nor  further  their  acceptance  with  God.  For  he 
that  is  called,  being  a  servant,  is  the  Lord's  freeman,  as  he  that  is 
called,  being  free,  is  the  Lord's  servant.  Though  he  be  not  dis 
charged  from  his  master's  service,  he  is  freed  from  the  dominion  and 
vassalage  of  sin.  He  who  is  a  slave  may  yet  be  a  Christian  freeman ; 
he  who  is  a  freeman  may  yet  be  Christ's  servant.  He  is  bought 
with  a  price,  and  should  not  therefore  be  the  servant  of  man.  Not  that 
he  must  quit  the  service  of  his  master,  or  not  take  all  proper  mea 
sures  to  please  him,  (this  were  to  contradict  the  whole  scope  of  the 
Apo&tlds  discourse,}  but  he  must  not  be  so  the  servant  of  men,  but 
that  Christ's  will  must  be  obeyed  and  regarded,  more  than  his  mas 
ter's.  He  has  paid  a  much  dearer  purchase  for  him,  and  has  a  much 
fuller  property  in  him." 

V.  24.  Let  every  man  wherein  Tie  is  called,  abide  therein  with 
God.  "  This,"  continues  our  commentator,  "  is  to  be  understood  of 
the  state  wherein  a  man  is  converted  to  Christianity.  No  man  should 
make  his  faith  or  religion  an  argument  to  break  through  any  nat 
ural  or  civil  obligations.  He  should  quietly  and  comfortably  abide 
in  the  condition  in  which  he  is,  and  this  he  may  well  do,  when  he 
may  abide  therein  with  God.  Note,  the  special  presence  and  favor 
of  God  are  not  limited  to  any  outward  condition  or  performance. 
He  may  enjoy  it  who  is  circumcised.  And  so  may  he  who  is  uncir- 
cumcised.  He  who  is  bound  may  have  it,  as  well  as  he  who  is  free. 


140  HENRY. 

In  this  respect,  there  is  neither  Greek  nor  Jew,  circumcision  nor  un- 
circumcision,  barbarian  nor  Scythian,  "bond  nor  free.  (Col.  3  :  2.)" 

Again,  in  the  comment  on  Eph.  6:5:  Servants,  be  obedient,  etc., 
we  read  as  follows,  viz. :  "  The  duty  of  servants  is  summed  up  in 
one  word,  which  is  obedience.  These  servants  were  generally  slaves : 
civil  servitude  is  not  inconsistent  with,  Christian  liberty" 

V.  9.  And  ye  masters,  do  the  same  thing  unto  them.  "  Observe," 
saith  our  commentator,  "  masters  are  under  as  strict  obligations  to 
discharge  their  duty  to  their  servants,  as  servants  are  to  be  obedient 
and  dutiful  to  them." 

The  same  doctrine  occurs,  in  yet  stronger  terms,  in  the  comment 
on  1  Tim.  6:1:  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yolce,  count 
their  own  masters  worthy  of  all  honor,  etc.  Thus  the  author  writes, 


"  If  Christianity  finds  servants  under  the  yoke,  it  continues  them 
under  it,  for  the  Gospel  does  not  cancel  the  obligations  any  lie  under, 
either  by  the  law  of  nature  or  by  mutual  consent." — "Suppose  the 
master  were  a  Christian  and  a  believer,  and  the  servant  a  believer 
too,  would  not  that  excuse  him,  because,  in  Christ  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free?  No,  by  no  means,  for  Jesus  Christ  did  not  come  to 
dissolve  the  bond  of  civil  relation,  BUT  TO  STRENGTHEN  IT." 

We  now  come  to  the  epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  Philemon.  "  The  occa 
sion  of  it,"  saith  our  commentator,  "was  this:  Philemon,  one  of 
note,  and  probably  a  minister  in  the  church  of  Colosse,  a  city  of 
Phrygia,  had  a  servant  named  Onesimus,  who,  having  purloined  his 
goods,  ran  away  from  him,  and  in  his  rambles  came  to  Rome,  where 
Paul  was  then  a  prisoner  for  the  Gospel ;  and  providentially  coming 
under  his  preaching  there,  was,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  converted  by 
him:  after  which,  he  ministered  awhile  to  the  Apostle  in  bonds,  and 
might  have  been  further  useful  to  him  ;  but  understanding  him  to  be 
another  man's  servant,  he  would  not,  without  his  consent,  detain 
him,  but  sends  him  back  with  this  letter  commendatory.  With  what 
earnestness  does  he  concern  himself  for  this  poor  slave  !  Being  now, 
through  his  preaching,  reconciled  to  God,  he  labors  for  reconciliation 
between  him  and  his  master." 

V.  16.  Not  now  as  a  servant,  but  above  a  servant,  a  brother  be 
loved,  etc.  "  That  is,"  saith  our  commentator,  "  not  merely  or  so 
much,  but  above  a  servant  in  a  spiritual  respect,  to  be  owned  as  a 
brother  in  Christ,  and  to  be  lovtd  as  such,  upon  account  of  the  holy 


HENRY.  141 

change  wrought  in  him,  and  who  will  therefore  be  useful  to  thee  on 
better  principles  and  in  a  better  manner  than  before.''1 

I  shall  add  but  one  extract  more,  from  this  esteemed  commentary, 
and  that  is  on  1  Pet.  2  :  18 :  Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters 
with  all  fear,  not  only  to  the  good,  and  gentle,  but  also  to  the  fro- 
ward.  Thus  saith  our  author,  viz. : 

"  The  case  of  servants  wanted  an  apostolical  determination  as  well 
as  that  of  subjects,  for  they  imagined  that  their  Christian  liberty  set 
them  free  from,  their  unbelieving  and  cruel  masters.  To  this  the 
Apostle  answers :  Servants,  be  subject.  By  servants,  he  means  those 
who  were  strictly  such,  whether  hired,  or  bought  with  money,  or 
taken  in  the  wars,  or  born  in  the  house,  or  those  who  served  by  con 
tract  for  a  limited  time,  as  apprentices ;  these  he  orders  to  be  subject, 
to  do  their  business  faithfully  and  honestly,  to  conduct  themselves, 
as  inferiors  ought,  with  reverence  and  affection,  and  to  submit  pa 
tiently  to  hardships  and  inconveniences.  This  subjection  they  owe 
to  their  masters,  who  have  a  right  to  their  service ;  and  that  not  only 
to  the  good  and  gentle,  such  as  use  them  well,  but  even  to  the 
crooked  and  perverse,  who  are  scarcely  to  be  pleased  at  all." 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  number  of  clear  and  distinct  statements  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  as  well  under  the  Mosaic  law  as  under  the 
apostles,  from  the  favorite  commentary  of  our  Presbyterian  brethren, 
which  not  only  occupied  the  first  rank  during  the  eighteenth  century, 
but  was  republished  in  A.D.  1829,  by  the  eminent  Dr.  Archibald 
Alexander,  with  the  warmest  commendations,  as  worthy  of  all  re 
gard  and  confidence.  The  Rev.  Edward  Bickersteth  gave  it  his  high 
praise.  The  judicious  Charles  Buck,  author  of  the  Theological  Dic 
tionary,  said  :  "In  my  opinion,  Henry  takes  the  lead  for  common 
utility."  And  the  pious  William  Romaine  declared  that  there  was 
"  no  comment  on  the  Bible,  either  ancient  or  modern,  in  all  respects 
equal  to  Mr.  Henry's."  Distinguished  as  it  is  by  our  Presbyterian 
brethren,  and  by  the  evangelical  party  in  our  own  Church,  I  trust 
that  you  will  be  ready  to  adopt  its  doctrine  as  a  safe  guide,  notwith 
standing  the  temptation  to  favor  the  very  contrary  assumptions  of 
ultra  abolitionism. 


142  SCOTT. 


CHAPTER    XVII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  I  proceed,  in  the  order  laid  down,  to 
the  commentary  of  Rev.  Thomas  Scott,  republished  in  Philadelphia 
in  1862,  from  the  London  edition  of  1822.  It  belongs  therefore, 
properly,  to  the  present  century,  and  has  been,  I  presume,  the  most 
extensively  patronized  in  our  own  country.  The  same  ground  must 
be  again  gone  over,  notwithstanding  the  repetition,  because  I  have 
promised  to  make  thorough  work  of  my  labor.  And  we  shall  see 
that  as  Scott  wrote  his  commentary,  after  the  great  abolition  move 
ment  in  England,  commenced  by  Wilberforce  and  others,  he  shows 
the  influence  of  the  times  very  strongly,  in  many  places,  and  was 
evidently  disposed  to  sympathize  with  the  popular  sentiment,  as  far 
as  possible,  without  too  glaring  a  contradiction  to  the  sacred  text. 

Thus,  on  Gen.  9  :  24-7,  containing  the  prophecy  of  Noah,  this 
commentator  saith  that  the  posterity  of  Canaan  "  were  no '  doubt 
principally  though  not  exclusively  intended."  And  he  quotes  from 
Bishop  Newton :  "  The  whole  continent  of  Africa  was  peopled  prin 
cipally  by  the  descendants  of  Ham,  and  for  how  many  ages  have  the 
better  parts  of  this  country  lain  under  the  dominion  of  the  Romans, 
and  then  of  the  Saracens,  and  now  of  the  Turks.  In  what  wicked 
ness,  ignorance,  barbarity,  slavery,  misery,  live  most  of  the  inhab 
itants  !  And  of  the  poor  negroes,  how  many  hundreds  every  year 
are  sold  and  bought,  like  oeasts  in  the  market,  and  conveyed  from 
one  quarter  of  the  world  to  do  the  work  of  beasts  in  another." 
"This,  however,"  saith  Scott,  "in  no  measure  vindicates  the  covet 
ous  and  barbarous  oppression  of  those  who  thus  enrich  themselves 
with  the  products  of  their  sweat  and  blood.  God  has  not  commanded 
us  to  enslave  negroes,  as  he  did  Israel  to  extirpate  the  Canaanites, 
and  therefore,  without  doubt,  he  will  severely  punish  this  cruel  in 
justice."  He  then  proceeds  to  say  that  "  true  religion  has  hitherto 
flourished  very  little  among  Ham's  descendants.  They  remain  to 
this  day  almost  entire  strangers  to  Christianity,  and  their  condition 
in  every  age  has  remarkably  coincided  with  this  prediction" 


SCOTT.  143 

Here  we  have  the  key-note  of  Rev.  Thomas  Scott's  commentary  m 
on  the  subject.  And  yet,  notwithstanding  his  evident  bias  towards 
abolitionism,  he  is  obliged  to  acknowledge,  first,  that  the  prophecy 
of  Noah  did  not  exclusively  ^efer  to  Canaan's  descendants.  If  not, 
then  it  must  have  included  the  other  descendants  of  Ham.  And  sec- 
ondty,  he  admits  that  the  condition  of  Hani's  descendants  in  every  age, 
coincided  remarkably  with  the  prophecy.  Thus  we  have  a  reluctant 
admission  of  the  same  substantial  truth  stated  by  the  previous  com 
mentators. 

As  to  his  statement  about  the  negroes,  and  the  judgment  of  God 
upon  their  oppressors,  there  is  no  question  about  the  truth  that  the 
Almighty  will  puni-sh  all  oppression  and  injustice,  whether  towards 
slaves  or  hirelings,  whether  it  be  exhibited  under  the  law  of  bondage, 
or  by  the  power  of  Mammon,  grinding  the  face  of  the  poor.  But  it 
must  be  remembered  that  in  all  remarks  like  these,  he  is  not  per 
forming  the  work  of  a  commentator  on  the  Bible,  whose  duty  it  is  to 
explain  the  Word  of  God,  and  not  to  set  his  personal  notions  or 
feelings  in  opposition  to  it.  I  shall  have  occasion  to  pass  the  same 
censure  on  this  author  on  other  occasions,  as  I  proceed.  Meanwhile 
his  admissions,  on  this  very  account,  are  the  more  valuable,  because 
they  are  extorted  from  him,  in  spite  of  his  prejudices,  by  the  force 
of  truth. 

The  change  of  sentiment  which  had  now  taken  place  is  plainly 
manifested  in  his  note  on  Exodus  21.  Thus  he  saith,  that  "  Slavery 
was  almost  universal  in  the  world,  and  though,  like  war,  it  always 
proceeded  of  evil,  and  was  generally  evil  in  itself,  yet  the  wisdom  of 
God  deemed  it  better  to  regulate  them  to  prohibit  it.  We  should 
not,  however,  judge  of  the  practice  itself  by  these  judicial  regulations, 
but  by  the  law  of  love.  Slavery,  like  war,  may  in  some  cases  in  the 
present  state  of  things  be  lawful ;  for  the  crime  which  forfeits  life  no 
doubt  forfeits  liberty  ;  and  it  is  not  inconsistent  even  with  the  moral 
law  for  a  criminal  to  be  sold  and  treated  as  a  slave,  during  a  term  of 
time  proportioned  to  his  offense.  In  most  other  cases,  if  not  in  all, 
it  must  be  inconsistent  with  the  laic  of  love." 

And  again,  in  his  comment  on  verse  16  of  the  same  chapter,  we 
have  another  example.  He  that  stealeth  a  man  and  selleth  him,  or 
if  he  be  found  in  his  hand,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.  "  The 
Jewish  writers  assert,"  saith  he,  "  that  it  was  not  a  capital  crime  to 
steal  one  of  another  nation,  but  only  when  the  person  stolen  was  a 


144  SCOTT. 

Hebrew..  Yet  this  is  by  no  means  consistent  with  the  text,  which 
certainly  implies  that  he  who  stole  any  one  of  the  human  species,  in 
order  to  make  a  slave  of  him,  should  be  punished  with  death." 

Now  in  the  first  of  these  extracts  the  commentator  entirely  disre 
gards  the  fact  that  the  law  of  love  was  laid  down  to  the  Jew  as  well 
as  to  the  Christian,  and  yet  in  the  Ten  Commandments,  which  are 
the  moral  law  by  eminence,  we  find  the  bondman  and  the  bondmaid 
distinctly  specified  as  property  not  to  be  coveted.  In  the  second  ex 
tract  he  ignores  the  text  in  Deut.  24  :  7,  where  the  same  law  respect 
ing  man-stealing  is  stated  more  fully,  with  the  very  limitation  on 
which  the  Jewish  doctors  insist,  viz.  : 

"If  a  man  ~be  found  stealing  any  of  liis  brethren  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  maketh  merchandise  of  him  or  selleth  him,  then  that 
man  shall  die"  And  when  we  come  to  his«commentary  on  this  text 
we  read  as  follows,  viz. : 

"  Christianity  has  annihilated  that  distinction  of  nations,  which, 
for  typical  and  political  reasons,  was  during  a  time  established,  and 
in  this  respect  every  man  is  now  our  brother,  whatever  be  his  nation, 
complexion,  or  creed.  How,  then,  can  the  merchandise  of  men  and 
women  be  carried  on  without  transgressing  this  commandment,  or 
abetting  those  who  do  ?" 

Here  this  author  asserts  a  downright  absurdity.  Christianity  ha,s 
not  annihilated  the  distinction  of  nations,  nor  was  it  intended,  as  all  the 
previous  commentaries  plainly  declare,  to  change  the  laws  of  earthly 
governments,  or  do  away  with  the  social  relations  established  among 
mankind.  The  brotherhood  which  the  Gospel  sets  forth  is  not  carnal 
but  spiritual.  The  kingdom  of  Christ  is  not  of  this  world.  True,  in 
deed,  God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  the  nations  upon  earth,  and  there 
fore,  by  reason  of  our  common  parentage,  all  men  may  be  called  breth 
ren  in  a  certain  sense.  But  Christian  brotherhood  is  created  by  our 
adoption  into  the  family  of  Christ,  through  faith  and  baptism,  by  which 
we  are  entitled  to  call  God  our  Father  in  heaven.  And  nothing  can 
be  more  false  than  the  assertion  that  Christianity  has  made  the  hea 
then  savage  any  more  our  brother  than  he  was  the  brother  of  the 
Jew  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 

Dr.  Scott  gives  a  notable  comment  also  upon  Lev.  25  :  44,  etc. 
"Both  thy  bondmen  and  thy  bondmaids  which  thou  shalt  have,  shall 
be  of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you  ;  of  them  shall  ye  buy 
bondmen  and  bondmaids.  Moreover  of  the  children  of  the  strangers 


SCOTT.  145 

that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their  families 
that  are  with  you,  and  they  shall  be  your  possession.  And  ye  shall 
take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after  you,  to  inherit 
them  for  a  possession  ;  they  shall  be  your  bondmen  forever ;  but  over 
your  brethren,  the  children  of  Israel,  ye  shall  not  rule  one  over  an 
other  with  rigor." 

Now  here  is  his  commentary  :  "  The  Israelites  were  permitted,  to 
keep  slaves  of  other  nations  ;  perhaps  in  order  to  typify  that  none 
but  the  true  Israel  of  God  participate  of  that  liberty  with  which  Christ 
hath  made  his  people  free.  But  it  icas  also  allowed  in  order  that  the 
Gentiles  might  become  acquainted  with  true  religion :  and  when  the 
Israelites  copied  the  example  of  their  pious  progenitors,  there  can  be 
no  reasonable  doubt  that  it  was  overruled  to  the  eternal  salvation  of 
many  souls.  It  does  not,  however,  appear  from  the  subsequent  his 
tory  that  the  people  availed  themselves  of  this  allowance  to  any  great 
extent,  for  we  read  but  little  of  slaves  from  among  the  Gentiles  pos 
sessed  by  them." 

It  seems  passing  strange  to  me  that  this  good  man  could  see  so 
clearly  the  reason  of  the  Almighty  in  directing  the  slavery  of  the  hea 
then  nations  round  about  Judea,  viz.,  in  order  that  the  Gentiles  might 
'become  acquainted  icith  true  religion,  so  that  it  was  overruled  to  the 
eternal  salvation  of  many  souls,  and  yet  could  not  see  that  the  slav 
ery  of  the  negro  race  admits  of  the  very  same  justification.  For  cer 
tain  it  is  that  they  were  by  that  means  redeemed  from  the  slavery  of 
Guinea,  where  two  thirds  of  the  whole  people  are  in  that  condition, 
and  redeemed  besides  from  the  awful  barbarism  and  idolatry  described 
by  Malte  Bran.  And  it  is  equally  certain  that  millions  of  their  pos 
terity  have  found  the  way  to  eternal  salvation,  under  the  Southern 
institution,  who  must  otherwise  have  lived  and  died  in  utter  darkness 
and  misery. 

But  Dr.  Scott  was  not  in  the  mood  to  discern  this  application  of 
his  argument.  Neither  does  he  inform  his  readers  that  the  Jubilee, 
of  which  he  had  been  writing  at  great  length,  did  not  operate  on  the 
condition  of  the  slaves,  though  that  fact  was  stated  plainly  by  the 
previous  commentators.  He  fancies,  however,  that  the  Israelites  did 
not  avail  themselves  of  the  divine  allowance  to  any  great  extent,  al 
though  he  knew  that  Abraham  had  three  hundred  and  eighteen  serv 
ants  born  in  his  own  house,  which  were  but  a  portion  of  the  whole. 
He  knew,  moreover,  that  when  the  Jews  returned  from  the  captivity 


146  SCOTT. 

in  Babylon,  the  free  population  amounted  to  forty-two  thousand  three 
hundred  and  sixty,  and  the  slaves  to  seven  thousand  three  hundred 
and  thirty-seven,  (Ezra  2  :  64-5,)  that  is,  about  one  slave  to  every 
six  persons,  women  and  children  included.  And  he  also  knew  that 
when  David  ordered  Joab  to  number  Israel,  it  was  found  that  the 
men  who  were  fit  for  war  amounted  to  one  million  three  hundred 
thousand,  which,  computing  that  these  could  not  have  been  more 
than  one  fourth  of  the  whole  population,  reckoning  both  sexes  and 
all  ages,  would  bring  the  sum  total  to  five  million  two  hundred  thou 
sand  souls.  Now,  if  we  allow  only  the  moderate  proportion  of  one 
sixth,  which  was  the  actual  number  of  the  slaves  when  the  Jews  re 
turned  from  Babylon,  we  shall  have  eight  hundred  and  sixty-six  thou 
sand  six  hundred  and  sixty-six  slaves  as  the  aggregate  in  the  reign 
of  David.  An$  as  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  not  numbered,  we  can  not 
seriously  err  if  we  compute  the  number  of  slaves  to  nearly  a  million. 
But  our  commentator  saith  that  we  read  but  little  concerning  them. 
Do  we  read  any  more,  or  even  as  much,  of  the  hired  servants  ?  How 
plainly  do  we  see  here  the  strong  bias  of  his  mind,  which  could  not 
allow  him  to  deal  fairly  by  the  positive  text  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
when  slavery  was  in  question  ! 

But  we  shall  find  this  commentator  more  faithful  in  the  Epistolary 
portions  of  the  New  Testament.  Thus,  Eph.  6:5:  "  Servants,  be 
obedient  to  your  masters,"  etc.  "  The  Apostle,"  saith  our  commen 
tator,  "  next  exhorts  servants  who  had  embraced  Christianity  to  be 
obedient  to  their  masters,  according  to  the  flesh,  that  is,  to  whom 
they  were  subjected  in  temporal  matters.  In  general,  the  servants 
at  that  time  were  slaves,  the  property  of  their  masters,  and  were  often 
treated  with  great  severity,  though  seldom  with  that  systematic 
cruelty  which  commonly  attends  slavery  in  these  days."  (Where  did 
Dr.  Scott  find  his  authority  for  this  statement  ?  The  testimony  of 
history  is  altogether  against  him.)  "  But  the  apostles  were  minis 
ters  of  religion,"  continues  he,  "  not  politicians  ;  they  had  not  that 
influence  among  rulers  and  legislators  which  would  have  been  neces 
sary  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  Indeed,  in  that  state  of  society  as  to 
other  things,  this  would  not  have  been  expedient:  God  did  not  please 
miraculously  to  interpose  in  the  case,  and  they  were  not  required  to 
exasperate  their  persecutors  by  expressly  contending  against  the  law 
fulness  of  slavery.  Yet  both  the  law  of  love  and  the  Gospel  of  grace 
tend  to  its  abolition  as  far  as  they  are  known  and  regarded ;  and  the 


SCOTT.  147 

universal  prevalence  of  Christianity  must  annihilate  slavery,  with 
many  other  evils,  which,  in  the  present  state  of  things,  can  not  wholly 
be  avoided.  In  the  wisdom  of  God  the  apostles  were  left  to  take  such 
matters  as  they  found  them,  and  to  teach  servants  and  masters  their 
respective  duties,  in  the  performance  of  which  the  evil  would  be 
mitigated,  till  in  due  time  it  should  be  extirpated  by  Christian  le°is- 
lators." 

On  1  Tim.  6:1:  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yoTce  count 
their  own  masters  worthy  of  all  honor,  etc.     "  The  Apostle  next," 
saith  our  commentator,  "  directed,  that  Christians,  who  were  under 
the  yoke  of  slavery,   should  quietly  attend  to  the  duties  of  their 
lowly  situation,   counting  their  own  masters  entitled  to  all  the  re 
spect,  fidelity,  and  obedience,  which  that  superior  relation  demanded  • 
and  not  supposing  that  their  religious  knowledge,  privileges,  or  lib 
erty,  gave  them  a  right  to  despise  their  heathen  masters,  to  speak  or 
act  disrespectfully  to  them,  to  disobey  their  lawful  commands,  or  to 
expose  their  faults  to  their  neighbors.     And  such  of  them  as  enjoyed 
the  privilege  of  believing  masters,   ought  by  no  means  to  despise 
them,  or  withhold  from .  them  due  respect  and  obedience,  because 
they  were  brethren  in  Christ,  and  so  upon  a  level  in  respect  of  re 
ligious  privileges ;  but  rather  do  them  service,  with  double  diligence 
and  cheerfulness,  because  of  their  faith  in  Christ,  and  their  interest 
in  his  love,  as  partakers  of  the  inestimable  benefit  of  his  salvation. 
This  shows  that  Christian  masters  were  not  required  to  set  their 
slaves  at  liberty,  though  they  were  instructed  to  behave  towards 
them  in  such  a  manner  as  would  greatly  lessen  and  nearly  annihilate 
the  evils  of  slavery.     It  would  have  excited  much  confusion,  awak 
ened  the  jealousy  of  the  civil  powers,  and  greatly  retarded  the  prog 
ress  of  Christianity,  had  the  liberation  of  slaves  by  their  converts 
been  expressly  required  by  the  Apostles  :  [though  the  principles  of 
both  the  law  and  the  Gospel,  when  carried  to  their  consequences, 
will  infallibly  abolish  slavery.]     These  things  Timothy  was  directed 
to  teach  and  enforce  as  matters  of  the  greatest  importance,  and  if 
any  persons  taught  otherwise,  and  consented  not  to  such  salutary 
words,  which  were  indeed  the  words  of  Christ  *  speaking  by  him/ 
and  an  essential  part  of  the  doctrine  according  to  godliness,  he  must 
be  considered  as  a  self-conceited  ignorant  man,  who,  being  puffed  up 
with  an  opinion  of  his  own  abilities,  was  ambitious  of  distinction  and 


148  SCOTT. 

applause,  though  entirely  unacquainted  with  the  real  nature  and 
tendency  of  the  Gospel." 

"  It  is  not  absolutely  certain,"  continues  Dr.  Scott,  "  to  what  set 
of  men  the  Apostle  referred ;  but  as  many  of  the  Jews  deemed  it 
unlawful  to  submit  to  heathen  governors,  it  is  probable  some  of  the 
Judaizing  teachers  inculcated  that  the  worshipers  of  God  ought  not 
to  obey  heathen  masters,  and  so  paid  their  court  to  servants,  by 
persuading  them  that  they  ought  to  assert  their  liberty.  But  there 
might  be  others  also  who  disregarded  and  "despised  those  practical 
instructions,  while  their  attention  was  taken  up  with  curious  and 
nice  speculations  and  distinctions.  Such  persons,  however,  were  to 
be  considered  as  doting  or  talking  wildly,  like  sick  and  delirious  per 
sons,  about  hard  questions  and  disputes  of  words,  names,  forms,  or 
notions,  which  had  no  connection  with  the  power  of  godliness.  In 
deed,  these  questions  and  disputes  tended  to  excite  envy  and  compe 
tition  between  one  and  another,  angry  contests  for  victory  and 
preeminence,  mutual  reviling  and  calumnies,  injurious  suspicions  and 
jealousies,  and  absurd,  obstinate,  and  violent  controversies,  betwixt 
men  of  corrupt  and  carnal  minds,  who  were  destitute  of  the  real 
knowledge  of  the  truth  and  its  sanctifying  efficacy,  and  who  only 
sought  their  own  secular  advantage  ;  supposing  religion  to  be  valu 
able,  in  proportion  as  it  tended  to  enrich  them,  as  if  gam  and  god 
liness  had  been  but  two  names  for  the  same  thing.  Thus  they 
wanted  to  persuade  the  Christian  servants  that  the  recovery  of  their 
liberty  was  to  be  considered  as  a  Christian  privilege  of  great  value, 
which  they  ought  to  claim,  whatever  the  consequence  might  be. 
From  such  men,  Timothy  was  exhorted  to  withdraw  Mwself,  and 
neither  have  acquaintance  with  them,  nor  spend  his  time  in  disputing 
with  them." 

Now  so  far  as  these  extracts  are  commentaries,  they  are  just  and 
true,  agreeing  with  the  previous  authors  whose  language  I  have 
quoted.  The  fault  is  that  Dr.  Scott  interlards  them  with  what  is  not 
a  commentary  on  Scripture,  but  his  own  notions  about  the  reasons 
which  influenced  the  divine  mind  to  have  nothing  said  which  could 
excite  commotion,  provoke  the  civil  government,  or  hinder  the  prog 
ress  of  the  Gospel.  But  while  I  object  to  the  error  of  confounding 
the  notions  of  Dr.  Scott  with  the  real  authority  of  an  inspired  Apostle, 
I  am  willing  to  accept  them  so  far  as  this,  viz. :  that  they  apply  with 
all  their  force  to  the  attacks  of  ultra-abolitionism  upon  the  Constitu- 


SCOTT.  149 

tion  and  the  laws  of  the  Union  at  the  present  day.  It  is  sufficient 
for  my  purpose,  however,  to  have  the  testimony  of  this  commentator 
to  the  fact,  that  Christian  masters  were  not  required  to  emancipate 
their  slaves  by  the  Gospel,  as  St.  Paul  expounded  it.  Of  course, 
the  Apostle  could  not  have  supposed  that  slaveholding  was  a  sin, 
and  I  contend  that  until  it  pleases  God  to  send  us  a  new  revelation, 
by  inspired  men,  able,  like  the  Apostles,  to  prove  their  divine  com 
mission  by  miracles,  the  Church  is  solemnly  bound  to  set  forth  the 
"same  doctrine  that  St.  Paul  commanded  Timothy  to  teach  ;  and  if 
she  dares  to  authorize  the  contrary  doctrine,  she  becomes,  so  far,  an 
apostate,  and  a  rebel  against  the  Word  of  the  Almighty. 

In  the  preface  to  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  Dr.  Scott  pursues  the 
same  track  with  the  other  commentators,  and  in  his  note  on  verses 
12-16,  he  saith  as  follows  : 

"  Onesimus  was  Philemon's  legal  property,  and  St.  Paul  had  re 
quired  and  prevailed  with  Onesimus  to  return  to  him,  having  made 
sufficient  trial  of  his  sincerity  ;  and  he  requested  Philemon  to  receive 
him  with  the  same  kindness  as  he  would  the  aged  Apostle's  own  son 
according  to  the  flesh,  being  equally  dear  to  him  as  his  spiritual  child. 
He  would  gladly  have  kept  him  at  Rome,  to  minister  to  him  in  his 
confinement ;  but  he  would  not  do  any  thing  of  this  kind  without 
his  master's  consent,  lest  he  should  seem  to  extort  the  benefit,  and 
Philemon  should  appear  to  act  from  *  necessity,'  rather  than  '  from  a 
willing  mind.'  He  had,  indeed,  hopes  of  deriving  benefit  from  Ones- 
imus's  faithful  service,  at  some  future  period,  by  Philemon's  free 
consent,  yet  he  was  not  sure  that  this  was  the  Lord's  purpose  re 
specting  him,  for  perhaps  he  permitted  him  to  leave  his  master  for  a 
season  in  so  improper  a  manner,  in  order  that,  being  converted,  he 
might  be  received  on  his  return  with  such  affection,  and  might  abide 
with  Philemon  with  such  faithfulness  and  diligence,  that  they  should 
choose  to  live  together  the  rest  of  their  lives,  as  fellow-heirs  of  eter 
nal  felicity.  In  this  case  he  knew  that  Philemon  would  no  longer 
consider  Onesimus  merely  as  a  slave,  but  view  him  as  '  above  a  slave, 
even  as  a  brother  beloved.'  This  he  was  become  to  Paul  in  an  espe 
cial  manner,  who  had  before  been  entirely  a  stranger  to  him :  how 
much  more,  then,  might  it  be  supposed  that  he  would  be  endeared 
to  Philemon,  when  he  became  well  acquainted  with  his  excellency, 
seeing  he  would  be  near  to  him,  both  in  the  flesh,  as  one  of  his 


150  LAW  OF  LOVE. 

domestics,  and  in  the  Lord,  being  one  with  him  in  Christ,  as  a  be 
liever  !" 

Now,  my  Right  Reverend  Brother,  while  I  can  not  close  my  eyes 
to  the  manifest  bias  in  favor  of  abolition  which  is  so  apparent  in  many 
parts  of  Scott's  Commentary,  I  have  shown  that  he  does  not  differ, 
substantially,  from  any  of  the  rest.  He  tells  us  indeed,  frequently, 
that  the  law  of  love  will  eventually  annihilate  slavery.  But  this  law 
of  love  was  proclaimed  by  Moses,  and  our  Lord  recognizes  the  fact, 
(Luke  10  :  26-7)  when  He  said  to  one  of  his  tempters :  "  What  is  writ 
ten  in  the  law  ?  how  readest  thou  ?"  And  he  answering  said  :  "  Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul, 
and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind,  and  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself."  The  Gospel  added  nothing  to  this  law  of  love,  because 
any  enlargement  of  it  was  impossible.  But  He  alone  fulfilled  it  to 
perfection,  and  gave  us  a  glorious  example,  and  a  new  motive  for  our 
obedience,  according  to  the  declaration  of  the  Apostle,  (1  John 
3:16:)  "  Hereby  we  perceive  the  love  of  God,  because  he  laid  down 
his  life  for  us,  and  we  ought  to  lay  down  our  lives  for  the  brethren." 
If,  then,  the  law  of  love  was  set  forth  by  the  Almighty  from  the  be 
ginning,  and  the  sanction  of  slavery  was  also  given,  both  under  the 
law  and  under  the  Gospel,  how  shall  it  be  believed  that  there  is  any 
thing  in  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  which  is  inconsistent  with 
love? 

For  what  is  this  relation  ?  That  one  man  shall  belong  to  another, 
and  serve  him  as  his  master.  Is  this  hostile  to  love  ?  Suppose  the 
slave  to  be  free,  and  he  would  be  a  hireling  to  his  employer.  Does 
that  relation  secure  love  ?  Is  it  not  manifest  that  my  love  for  any 
thing  becomes  increased  by  making  it  belong  to  me,  since  now  it  is  a 
part  of  myself,  and  my  attachment  to  it  is  insured  by  that  very  rea 
son  ? 

Why  'do  I  love  my  children  better  than  all  others  ?  Simply  be 
cause  they  belong  to  me.  Why  do  I  love  my  wife  better  than  all 
other  women  ?  Because  she  belongs  to  me.  Why  do  I  love  my  house 
better  than  any  other  habitation  ?  Because  it  belongs  to  me.  So  far 
is  ownership  from  preventing  love,  that  it  secures  and  increases  love 
beyond  any  other  principle  of  human  action.  And  if  so,  why  should 
not  the  same  law  operate  in  the  relation  of  servitude  ?  For  while 
the  servant  is  only  my  hireling,  and  may  depart  from  me  at  any  mo 
ment,  I  am  not  disposed  to  look  upon  him  with  any  stronger  affec- 


LAW  OF  LOVE.  151 

tion  than  I  have  for  others.  But  let  him  be  my  own,  and  I  can  not 
help  regarding  him  with  a  "new  sense  of  attachment.  My  sympathy, 
my  responsibility,  my  solicitude,  are  all  engaged  as  they  could  not  be 
without  the  bond  that  now  unites  us,  and  1  have  a  love  for  him,  of 
necessity,  which  I  could  not  have  had  before. 

And  therefore  it  is  that  the  highest  love  in  the  universe,  the  love  of 
Christ,  is  manifested  in  the  language  of  servitude.  "  Let  this  mind 
be  in  you,"  saith  the  Apostle,  (Phil.  2  :  5-8)  "which  was  also  in 
Christ  Jesus,  who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal  with  God,  but  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took 
upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,"  (>o^?>  ddvhov,  literally  the  form 
of  a  slave,)  "and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  and  being  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obedient  unto 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  Cross." 

That  principle  runs  throughout  His  whole  course.  As  God,  He 
was  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory,  receiving  the  worship  and  homage  of 
all  that  approached  Him.  But  as  man,  He  was  the  servant  of  all,  at 
tending  to  every  call  for  His  labors,  Himself  so  poor  that  He  had  not 
where  to  lay  His  head,  and  not  shrinking  from  reproaches,  blows,  and 
scourgings,  the  treatment  too  often  given  to  slaves.  He  washed  His 
disciples'  feet,  the  office  performed  by  slaves.  He  died  upon  the  Cross, 
the  punishment  of  the  slave  according  to  the  Roman  law.  And  after 
He  had  thus  fulfilled  His  wondrous  work,  "  in  the  form  of  a  slave," 
and  risen  to  His  throne  of  glory,  He  presents  the  same  principle  to 
us.  "Ye  are  not  your  own,"  saith  St.  Paul,  (1  Cor.  6  :  19-20,)  "for 
ye  are  bought  with  a  price."  And  "ye  know,"  saith  St.  Peter,  (1  Pet. 
1  :  18,)  "  that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  as  silver 
and  gold ;  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without 
blemish  and  without  spot."  And  hence  the  law  of  love  is  inseparable 
from  the  law  of  servitude,  and  the  service  of  Christ  is  our  only  "per 
fect  freedom." 

The  relations  of  this  mortal  life  are  all  regarded  in  the  Bible  as 
typical  of  our  relations  to  God,  and  to  the  divine  Redeemer.  Thus 
the  matrimonial  relation  is  a  type  of  the  union  between  Christ  and 
the  Church,  and  hence,  as  the  Church  is  obedient  to  Christ,  so,  saith 
the  Apostle,  let  the  wife  be  to  her  husband.  Thus  the  filial  relation 
is  a  type  of  our  relation,  as  the  children  of  God,  to  our  Father  in 
heaven.  Thus,  too,  the  relation  of  bond-servants,  or  slaves,  is  the 


152  LAW  OF  LOVE. 

type  of  our  relation  to  our  glorious  Lord  and  Master.    And  the  prin 
ciple  of  love  runs  throughout  the  whole. 

It  is  no  answer  to  this,  that  slaves  are  liable  to  be  treated  with 
cruelty  or  barbarity.  So  are  men,  in  all  the  relations  of  society. 
Such  treatment  is  a  sin,  because  it  is  in  direct  contrariety  to  the  com 
mands  of  God,  who  lays  down  the  plainest  rules  upon  the  duties  of 
husbands,  fathers,  and  masters,  as  well  as  those  which  belong  to 
wives,  and  children,  and  servants  or  slaves.  The  relation  itself  is 
not  to  be  censured,  because  the  treatment  may  be  wrong.  And  there 
fore  the  Bible  says  nothing  about  abolishing  slavery,  but  only  regu~ 
lates  it  according  to  the  will  of  God.  Therefore,  too,  we  have  seen 
that  the  Church  never  made  any  effort  to  abolish  it.  Therefore  we 
shall  find,  in  examining  the  subject,  that  the  causes  which  led  to  its 
extinction  in  Europe  were  secular,  and  not  religious,  arising  from 
changes  gradually  taking  place  amongst  each  particular  people.  But 
this  must  be  reserved  for  another  place,  and  I  shall  now  proceed  to 
our  next  commentary. 


CLARKE.  153 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  name  of  Adam  Clarke  is  of  high 
reputation  amongst  our  Methodist  brethren,  and  his  influence  has 
doubtless  been  very  great  in  producing  the  controversy  about  the 
slave  question  which  ended  in  the  separation,  North  and  South,  of 
that  very  numerous  and  powerful  denomination.  Of  course,  as  his 
commentary  appeared  after  the  English  Parliament  had  emancipated 
the  slaves  in  Jamaica,  he  belongs  to  the  modern  school  of  abolitionists. 
Yet  we  shall  find  that,  notwithstanding  his  sweeping  denunciation, 
he  does  not,  as  a  commentator,  give  any  authority  for  the  ultra  doc 
trine  to  which  I  stand  opposed. 

Thus,  on  Gen.  9  :  22-  4,  And  Ham,  the  father  of  Canaan,  etc.,  he 
writes  as  follows  :  "  Ham,  and  very  probably,  his  son  Canaan,  had 
treated  their  father  on  this  occasion  with  contempt  or  reprehensible 
levity.  Had  Noah  not  been  innocent,  as  my  exposition  supposes 
him,  God  would  not  have  endowed  him  with  the  spirit  of  prophecy." 

This,  by  the  way,  is  stated  too  strongly,  for  God  endowed  Balaam 
with  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  notwithstanding  he  was  a  wicked  man, 
and  Caiaphas  prophesied,  though  he  was  the  enemy  of  our  Saviour. 
The  power  of  prophecy  is  not  a  personal  privilege  to  the  man,  but  a 
gift  to  the  Church,  for  whose  sake  it  is  delivered. 

"  The  conduct  of  Shem  and  Japheth,"  continues  Dr.  Clarke,  "  was 
such  as  became  pious  and  affectionate  children,  who  appear  to  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  treating  their  father  with  decency,  reverence, 
and  obedient  respect.  On  the  one,  the  spirit  of  prophecy  (not  the 
incensed  father)  pronounces  a  curse  :  on  the  others,  the  same  spirit 
(not  parental  tenderness)  pronounces  a  blessing.  These  things 
would  have  been  just  as  they  afterward  occurred,  had  Noah  never 
spoken.  God  had  wise  and  powerful  reasons  to  induce  him  to  sen 
tence  the  one  to  perpetual  servitude,  and  to  allot  to  the  others  prosper 
ity  and  dominion.  Besides,  the  curse  pronounced  on  Canaan  neither 
fell  immediately  upon  himself  nor  on  his  worthless  father,  but  upon 
7* 


154:  THE  CANAANITES. 

the  Canaanites,  and  from  the  history  we  have  of  this  people,  in  Lev. 
18  :  20,  and  Deut.  9  :  4,  12  :  31,  we  may  ask,  could  the  curse  of  God 
fall  more  deservedly  on  any  people  than  on  these  ?  Their  profligacy 
was  great,  but  it  was  not  the  effect  of  the  curse,  but  being  foreseen 
by  the  Lord,  the  curse  was  the  effect  of  their  conduct.  But  even 
this  curse  does  not  exclude  them  from  the  possibility  of  obtaining 
salvation  :  it  extends  not  to  the  soul  and  to  eternity,  but  merely  to 
their  bodies  and  to  time.  How  many,  even  of  these,  repented,  we 
can  not  tell." 

I  would  only  remark  here :  First.  That  Dr.  Clarke  clearly  regards 
^perpetual  servitude  as  the  decree  of  God  upon  the  Canaanites  ;  and, 
secondly,  that  he  confines  the  operation  of  this  decree  to  their  bodies, 
with  perfect  propriety.  It  may  be  well,  however,  now  to  consider 
whether  the  execution  of  this  decree  does  not  of  necessity  require 
the  continuance  of  the  race  of  Canaan.  For  the  land  of  Canaan  was 
to  be  given  to  Israel,  and  the  inhabitants  thereof  included  seven 
nations,  all  of  whom  were  commanded  to  be  cut  off ;  not  enslaved, 
but  exterminated.  If  there  were  no  Canaanites  anywhere  else  but 
in  Canaan,  how  could  the  decree  of  extermination  and  the  decree  of 
perpetual  servitude  be  made  to  agree  together  ? 

Now  we  know  that  the  Canaanites  were  not  exterminated  com 
pletely,  even  in  Canaan  ;  and  we  find  them  still  existing  in  our  Sav 
iour's  days,  because  "  a  woman  of  Canaan"  came  from  the  coasts 
of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  to  ask  relief  for  her  daughter  at  the  hand  of  our 
Lord,  (Matt.  15  :  22.)  Moreover,  we  read,  that  "Canaan  begat  Sidon 
and  Heth,  and  the  Jebusite,  and  the  Amorite,  and  the  Girgasite, 
and  the  Hivite,  and  the  Arkite,  and  the  Sinite,  and  the  Arvadite,  and 
the  Zemarite,  and  the  Hamathite ;  and  afterward  were  the  families 
of  the  Canaanites  spread  abroad"  (Gen.  10: 15-18.)  Dr.  Clarke,  in 
his  note  on  this  passage,  saith,  that  the  Jebusite,  Amorite,  eta,  "  are 
well  known  as  being  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  expelled  by 
the  children  of  Israel."  And  this,  to  a  considerable  extent,  must 
have  been  the  case.  A  large  number  were  slain  in  the  wars  of  Is 
rael.  Another  probably  large  number  continued  to  dwell  in  the 
land,  and  could  not  be  driven  out,  because  the  Israelites  were  faith 
less  and  disobedient.  But  it  is  obvious  that  when  they  found  it  im 
possible  to  resist  the  victorious  sword  of  Joshua,  a  considerable 
proportion  of  the  wealthier  classes,  who  were  able  to  emigrate,  would 
fly  from  the  conqueror,  and  seek  a  refuge  in  other  lands. 


THE   CANAANITES.  155 

Here,  then,  we  have  to  inquire,  where  did  they  go  ?  We  have 
eleven  names  of  the  heads  of  tribes  set  forth  as  the  posterity  of  Ca 
naan  in  Genesis  10:  15-18,  of  whom  only  seven  were  involved  in  the 
invasion  of  the  Israelites.  What  became  of  the  other  four?  We 
have,  besides,  the  emigrating  portion  of  those  seven  nations  to  place 
somewhere.  We  have  also  to  allow  room  for  the  families  of  the 
Canaanites  which,  long  before  the  investment  of  Canaan,  are  said  to 
have  been  "spread  abroad."  We  can  trace  some  of  the  Canaanites 
to  Tyre  and  Sidon,  Phoenicia  and  Carthage,  but  there  can  not  be  any 
reasonable  doubt  that  the  other  nations  of  the  race  occupied  a  far 
more  extensive  range.  And  as  we  know  nothing  about  the  locality 
in  which  these  families  of  the  Canaanites  were  "  spread  abroad," 
nor  where  a  portion  of  the  seven  nations  "  expelled  "  from  Canaan 
betook  themselves,  what  is  to  prevent  our  supposing  that  they  settled 
in  various,  parts  of  Ethiopia  and  Guinea,  and  that  the  descendants  of 
Canaan  are  there  to  this  day  ? 

The  argument  for  this  conclusion  seems  to  my  mind  unanswerable. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  Africa  is  acknowledged  by  all  to  be  the  land 
of  Ham,  peopled  by  his  posterity.  2d.  The  progeny  of  Canaan, 
which  would  seem,  from  the  names  recorded  in  Gen.  10,  to  have 
been  far  more  numerous  than  that  of  his  other  sons,  would  naturally 
be  found  on  the  same  continent  with  their  brethren  of  the  same 
race,  with  whom,  in  language,  in  idolatry,  and  in  general  licentious 
ness,  they  must  have  been  most  nearly  associated.  3d.  We  can  find 
no  traces  elsewhere  of  the  posterity  of  four  of  these  sons  of  Canaan, 
which  were  not  concerned  in  the  wars  of  Israel.  And,  4th,  the  ac 
count  given  by  Malte  Brun,  and  all  other  writers,  concerning  the 
present  state  of  Guinea,  agrees  with  the  Scriptural  statement  of  the 
immorality  and  corruption  of  the  Canaanites.  It  is  true,  indeed, 
that  the  portion  of  those  which  had  settled  in  the  promised  land 
appear  to  have  been  farther  advanced  in  the  arts  than  the  people  of 
Dahomey.  But  this  only  proves  that  idolatry  and  wickedness  tend 
to  barbarism.  We  know  that  our  continent  was  peopled  once  by  a 
race  superior  to  the  Indians.  We  know  that  vast  portions  of  Asia 
and  Africa  were  more  civilized  two  thousand  years  ago  than  they  are 
at  this  day.  The  result,  on  the  whole,  would  therefore  seem  most 
probable,  that  the  African  race  at  the  South  are  a  portion  of  the 
posterity  of  Ham,  through  the  line  of  Canaan.  And  hence,  the 
most  limited  interpretation  of  Noah's  prophecy  would  agree  with  the 
historical  facts  of  their  degradation  and  their  slavery. 


156  CLARKE. 

Dr.  Clarke,  in  his  note  on  Gen.  9:25,  Cursed  le  Canaan,  recog 
nizes  the  same  fact  which  is  stated  by  Bishop  Newton  and  others, 
viz.,  that  "the  Arabic  version  has  Ham,  the  father  of  Canaan  ;"  but 
"  this,"  saith  he,  "  is  acknowledged  by  none  of  the  other  versions, 
and  seems  to  be  merely  a  gloss."  It  has  not  been  so  regarded,  as 
we  have  seen,  by  others,  but  I  care  nothing  about  the  choice  between 
the  versions,  as  either  will  suffice  to  vindicate  the  consistency  of  the 
Deity,  when  properly  applied,  and  save  us  from  the  common  mistake 
of  supposing  that  the  Lord  decreed  the  servitude  of  the  very  same 
people  at  one  time,  whom  he  ordered  to  be  exterminated  at  another. 
As  soon  as  we  understand  that  the  portion  of  the  Canaanites  who 
were  to  be  exterminated  by  Israel  was  only  a  part  of  the  whole,  this 
difficulty  vanishes.  The  subject,  however,  will  be  more  fully  con 
sidered  in  a  subsequent  chapter. 

Our  commentator  gives  a  clearer  statement  on  the  case"  of  Hagar, 
Gen.  JL6  :  2,  than  some  others.  "  It  must  not  be  forgotten,"  saith  he, 
"  that  female  slaves  constituted  a  part  of  the  private  patrimony  or 
possession  of  a  wife ;  and  that  she  had  a  right,  according  to  the 
usage  of  those  times,  to  dispose  of  them  as  she  pleased.  Tlie 
slave  being  the  absolute  property  of  the  mistress,  not  only  her  person, 
but  the  fruits  of  her  labor,  with  all  her  children,  were  her  owner's 
property  also.  The  children,  therefore,  that  were  born  of  the  slave 
were  considered  as  the  children  of  the  mistress.  It  was  on  this 
ground  that  Sarai  gave  her  maid  to  Abram." 

The  text  in  Exodus,  ch.  21,  r.  16,  lie  that  stealeth  a  man,  etc., 
affords  an  example  of  Dr.  Clarke's  bias  towards  modern  ultra-aboli 
tionism.  "  By  this  law,"  saith  he,  "  every  man-stealer,  and  every 
receiver  of  the  stolen  person,  should  lose  his  life ;  no  matter  whether 
the  latter  stole  the  man  himself,  or  gave  money  to  a  slave-captain,  or 
negro-dealer,  to  steal  it  for  him." 

In  this  he  manifests  a  great  degree  of  disingenuousness,  because  he 
passes  by,  in  total  silence,  the  language  in  Deuteronomy  24  :  V, 
where  the  same  law  is  laid  down  in  more  precise  terms,  limiting  the 
offense  to  the  stealing  of  an  Israelite,  to  make  merchandise  of  him. 
The  maxim  of  all  courts  of  justice  is,  that  laws  in  pari  materia — i.e., 
on  the  same  subject — must  be  construed  together,  but  Dr.  Clarke 
disregards  this,  and  gives  a  false  construction  to  the  briefer  text, 
while  he  ignores  the  longer  and  more  complete  one.  Moreover,  he 
contradicts  the  exposition  of  the  Jewish  doctors,  who  have  the  best 
right  to  be  heard,  in  the  interpretation  of  their  own  law. 


CLARKE.  157 

On  Lev.  25,  where  the  express  direction  is  given  by  the  Almighty 
that  the  Israelites  should  buy  bondmen  and  bondmaids  of  the  heathen, 
who  should  serve  them  and  their  children  forever,  Dr.  Clarke  is  en 
tirely  silent.  He  also  passes  over,  without  remark,  the  fact  that  the 
Jubilee  only  freed  the  Jewish  servant,  and  had  no  application  to  the 
slaves.  In  both  of  these  I  should  consider  him  unfaithful  to  his  duty 
as  a  commentator,  unless  he  supposed  that  the  texts  were  so  plain  as 
to  make  comment  quite  unnecessary. 

But  he  gives  a  correct  note  on  the  text,  Deut.  23  :  15,  Thou  shalt 
not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  servant  which  is  escaped  from  his  mas 
ter  unto  thee — a  text  which  the  ultra-abolitionist  is  so  fond  of  using 
as  a  warrant  for  refusing  to  obey  the  Constitution  and  the  Fugitive 
Slave  law.  On  this,  however,  Dr.  Clarke  is  very  clear :  "  That  is," 
saith  he,  "a  servant  who  left  an  idolatrous  master,  that  he  might  join 
himself  to  God  and  to  his  people.  In  any  other  case  it  would  have 
been  injustice  to  have  harbored  the  runaway.'11  A  most  true  and 
righteous  exposition ! 

And  in  his  comments  on  the  leading  texts  of  the  New  Testament, 
Dr.  Clarke  is  usually  fair,  with  one  very  marked  exception.  Thus, 
on  1  Cor.  V  :  21,  "Art  thou  called  being  a  servant  ?  Care  not  for  it" 
etc.,  he  gives  the  following  note,  viz. :  "Art  thou  converted  to  Christ, 
while  thou  art  a  slave?  the  property  of  another  person  and  bought 
with  his  money?  Care  not  for  it :  this  will  not  injure  thy  Christian 
condition ;  but  if  thou  canst  obtain  thy  liberty,  use  it  rather :  prefer 
this  state  for  the  sake  of  freedom,  and  the  temporal  advantages  con 
nected  with  it." 

V.  22.  For  he  that  is  called,  etc.  "The  man  who,  being  a  slave, 
is  converted  to  the  Christian  faith,  is  the  Lord's  freeman ;  his  condi 
tion  as  a  slave  does  not  vitiate  any  of  the  privileges  to  which  he  is 
entitled  as  a  Christian ;  on  the  other  hand,  all  freemen  who  receive 
the  grace  of  Christ,  must  consider  themselves  the  slaves  of  the  Lord, 
i.  e.,  his  real  property,  to  be  employed  and  disposed  of  according  to 
his  godly  wisdom,  who,  notwithstanding  their  state  of  subjection,  will 
find  the  service  of  their  Master  to  be  perfect  freedom." 

V.  23.  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price.  "  As  truly  as  your  bodies  have 
become  the  property  of  your  master,  in  consequence  of  his  paying 
down  a  price  for  you,  so  surely  you  are  now  the  Lord's  property,  in 
consequence  of  your  being  purchased  by  the  blood  of  Christ." 

"  Some  render  this  verse  interrogatively:  Are  ye  bought  icith  a  price 


158  CLAKKE. 

from  your  Slavery  ?  Do  not  again  become  slaves  of  men.  Never  sell 
yourselves;  prefer  and  retain  your  liberty,  now  that  ye  have  acquir 
ed  it." 

"  In  these  verses  the  Apostle  shows  that  the  Christian  religion  does 
not  abolish  our  civil  connections — in  reference  to  them,  where  it  finds 
us,  there  it  leaves  us.  In  whatever  relation  we  stood  before  our  em 
bracing  Christianity,  there  we  stand  still :  our  secular  condition  being 
no  further  changed,  than  as  it  may  be  affected  by  the  amelioration  of 
our  moral  character." 

This  is  sound  doctrine,  in  agreement  with  Scripture  and  with  rea 
son.  But  in  his  comment  on  the  next  text  which  I  have  quoted,  his 
ultra-abolitionism  blazes  forth  in  a  sentence  which  stands  at  the  head 
of  all  others  for  its  virulence ;  plainly  proving  how  the  spirit  of  fan 
aticism  may  carry  away  the  best  men  into  the  most  extravagant  in 
consistency.  Thus  it  reads: 

Eph.  6:5:  Servants  ~be  obedient.  "  Though  dovhos  frequently  sig 
nifies  a  slave  or  bondman,  yet  it  often  implies  a  servant  in  general,  or 
any  one  bound  to  another,  either  for  a  limited  term  or  for  life.  Even 
a  slave,  if  a  Christian,  was  bound  to  serve  him  faithfully,  by  whose 
money  he  was  bought,  however  illegal  the  traffic  may  be  considered. 
In  heathen  countries  slavery  was  in  some  sort  excusable.  AMONG  CHRIST 
IANS,  IT  IS  AN  ENORMITY  AND  A  CRIME  FOR  WHICH  PERDITION  ITSELF  HAS 
SCARCELY  AN  ADEQUATE  STATE  OF  PUNISHMENT!" 

And  yet,  in  his  comment  on  the  following  verses,  the  same  Dr. 
Clarke  writes  these  words,  viz.  : 

V.  7:  With  good  will.  "Mer'  evvoiac,  with  cheerfulness;  do 
not  take  up  your  service  as  a  cross,  or  bear  it  as  a  burden  ;  but  take 
it  as  coming  in  the  order  of  God's  Providence,  and  a  thing  that  is 
pleasing  to  him!" 

I  shall  only  observe,  here,  that  the  proper  duty  of  a  commentator 
on  the  Bible  is  to  give  the  meaning  of  the  text.  So  far  as  Dr.  Clarke 
does  this,  we  find  him  generally  correct  in  the  New  Testament.  But 
the  declaration  about  slavery  being  an  enormity  and  a  crime  among 
Christians  has  no  relation  whatever  to  the  text  of  the  Apostle.  It  is 
simply  the  feeling  of  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  under  the  stimulus  of  the 
new-born  spirit  of  English  abolitionism.  And  therefore,  although  he 
has  placed  it  in  his  Commentary,  it  is  entirely  destitute  of  the  char 
acter  which  every  real  commentary  should  possess.  Instead  of  ex 
plaining  the  Scripture,  it  actually  opposes  it,  making  God  to  sanction 


CLAEKE.  159 

for  his  chosen  Israel,  and  afterwards  for  His  Church  of  Christ,  under 
the  government  of  his  inspired  Apostles,  a  crime  and  an  enormity 
for  which  perdition  itself  has  scarcely  an  adequate  punishment !  To 
my  mind,  Such  language  is  nothing  better  than  blasphemy,  and  I 
should  consider  it  an  enormity  and  a  crime  to  indorse  it.  It  is  found, 
indeed,  in  a  commentary,  just  as  a  toad  has  sometimes  been  found  in 
a  rock.  Yet  no  one  could  be  so  foolish  as  to  suppose  that  between 
the  toad  and  the  rock  there  was  any  natural  affinity.  But  as  the 
subject  will  recur  again,  I  need  not  enlarge  upon  it  now,  and  shall 
proceed  to  the  remaining  extracts  from  this  author. 

1  Tim.  6:1:  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  wider  the  yoTce,  etc. 
"The  word  (JotAoj-  here,"  saith  Dr.  Clarke,  "means  slaves  converted 
to  the  Christian  faith,  and  the  (.vyov  or  yoke,  is  the  state  of  slavery. 
Even  these,  in  such  circumstances,  and  under  such  domination,  are 
commanded  to  treat  their  masters  with  all  honor  and  respect,  that  the 
name  of  God,  by  which  they  were  called,  and  the  doctrine  of  God, 
Christianity,  which  they  had  professed,  might  not  be  blasphemed, 
might  not  be  evil  spoken  of,  in  consequence  of  their  improper  con 
duct.  ClVIL  RIGHTS  ARE  NEVER  ABOLISHED  BY  ANY  COMMUNICATIONS 

FROM  GOD'S  SPIRIT.  The  civil  state  in  which  man  was  before  his  con 
version  is  not  altered  by  that  conversion,  nor  does  the  grace  of  God 
absolve  him  from  any  claims  which  either  the  state  or  his  neighbor 
may  have  upon  him.  All  these  outward  things  continue  unaltered" 
Here  is  sound  doctrine  again,,  entirely  free  from  abolitionism. 

Lastly,  in  his  note  on  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  (v.  12  :  Whom  I 
have  sent  again,}  Dr.  Clarke  gives  this  correct  comment :  "  The  Christ 
ian  religion,"  saith  he,  "never  cancels  any  civil  relations:  a  slave,  on 
being  converted,  and  becoming  a  free  man  of  Christ,  has  no  right  to 
claim,  on  that  ground,  emancipation  from  the  service  of  his  master. 
JUSTICE,  therefore,  required  St.  Paul  to  send  back  Onesimus  to  his 
master,  and  CONSCIENCE  obliged  Onesimus  to  agree  in  the  propriety  of 
the  measure." 

I  have  now  given  a  full  exhibition  of  the  course  pursued  by  this 
eminent  Methodist  commentator.  In  the  main,  he  is  sound  and  cor 
rect.  I  shall  leave  it  to  you  or  any  other  advocate  to  reconcile  his 
occasional  inconsistency,  which  I  acknowledge  to  be  a  task  quite  be 
yond  my  power.  There  is  still,  however,  one  of  those  works  belong 
ing  to  the  nineteenth  century,  which  I  have  placed  upon  my  list,  and 
to  that  I  shall  next  invite  your  attention. 


160  COMPREHENSIVE  COMMENTARY. 


CHAPTER    XIX. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  Comprehensive  Commentary  which 
professes  to  contain  nearly  all  that  is  valuable  in  Henry,  Scott,  arid 
Doddridge,  may  be  considered  as  the  book  of  the  Orthodox  Congre- 
gationalists,  and  will  not  require  much  space  to  be  given  to  it,  because 
I  have  already  quoted  largely  from  Henry  and  Scott,  and  shall  by  and 
by  quote  from  Doddridge,  all  of  whom  will  speak  for  themselves.  A 
respectful  attention,  however,  is  due  to  this  work,  and  I  shall  make 
some  extracts  from  it  accordingly. 

Lev.  25  :  39-55.  The  Israelites  "might  purchase  bondmen," 
saith  this  commentary,  "  of  the  heathen  nations  round  about  them, 
(except  of  the  seven  nations  to  be  destroyed,)  and  might  claim  a  do 
minion  over  them,  and  entail  them  on  their  families,  as  an  inheritance, 
for  the  year  of  Jubilee  should  give  no  discharge  to  them.  Thus  ne 
groes  only  are  used  as  slaves,  how  much  to  the  credit  of  Christianity 
I  shall  not  say." 

Exod.  21  :  16.  "Here  is  a  law,"  saith  the  commentator,  "against 
man-stealing.  He  that  steals  a  man,  woman,  or  child,  with  a  design 
to  sell  them  to  the  Gentiles,  (for  no  Israelite  would  buy  them,)  was 
adjudged  to  death  by  this  statute."  This  writer  is  in  better  agree 
ment  with  the  other  law  on  the  same  subject,  in  Deut.  24  :  7,  than 
either  Scott  or  Clarke,  and  his  note  on  this  last  is  not  unfair,  as  it 
quotes  the  words  of  Henry,  who  belonged  to  the  eighteenth  century. 

On  Deut.  23  :  15 :  Thou  shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  serv 
ant  which  is  escaped  from  his  master  unto  thee,  the  interpretation  is 
taken  from  Henry  and  Scott,  and  both  of  these  are  substantially  in 
accordance  with  my  own  in  the  Bible  View  of  Slavery,  but  entirely 
inconsistent  with  the  misapprehension  of  the  ultra-abolitionist,  who 
sets  it  against  the  other  laws  of  God,  as  well  as  against  the  Constitu 
tion  of  his  country. 

But  in  1  Cor.  T  :  21,  Art  thou  called  "being  a  servant,  care  not  for 
it,  ljut  if  thou  mayest  he  made  free,  use  it  rather  this  commentary 


COMPREHENSIVE  COMMENTARY.  161 

not  only  gives  the  notes  of  Henry  and  Scott,  but  also  an  original  one 
from  Dr.  Jenks,  which  is  worth  transcribing. 

"  The  sense,"  saith  he,  "  is  not  clear.  Chrysostom  and  all  the  old 
comtrs.  (commentators)  understand,  '  You  need  care  so  little,  that 
even  if  you  can  gain  your  freedom,  prefer  your  servitude  as  a  greater 
trial  of  Christian  patience !'  (So  a  religion  of  despotism  counsels, 
contrary  to  the  precept,  '  Do  not  evil  that  good  may  come,'  and  to  the 
prayer,  '  Lead  us  not  into  temptation.'  By  what  right  can  any  man 
imbrute  God's  image,  which  Christ  atoned  for,  to  a  mindless,  will-less, 
soulless,  rightless  chattel !  Yet)  so  Camer,  Schmidt,  Sparck,  Estius, 
De  Dieu,  and  the  Syr.  And  this  sense,  they  think,  is  confirmed  by 
the  following  consolatory  words,  '  For  he,'  etc.  It  is  also  ably  de 
fended  by  De  Dieu  and  Wolf.  But  there  is  a  certain  harshness  about 
it  to  which  necessity  alone  would  reconcile  me.  What  is  detrimental 
to  human  happiness  can  not  be  promotive  of  virtue.  The  true  intent 
seems  that  of  Beza,  Grot.,  Ham.,  and  most  recent  comtrs.  '  Do  not 
feel  a  too  great  trouble  on  that  account,  as  if  it  could  materially  affect 
your  acceptance  with  God,  and  as  if  that  were  a  condition  unworthy 
of  a  Christian.'  l  Grace  knows  no  distinctions  of  freedom  or  servitude, 
therefore  bear  it  patiently.'  Grotius  adds :  *  And  above  all,  let  it  not 
drive  you  to  seek  your  freedom  by  unjustifiable  means.'  And  he 
remarks  that  a  misunderstanding  of  the  nature  of  Christian  liberty 
had  made  many  Christian  slaves  not  only  murmur  at  their  situation, 
but  seek  to  throw  off  all  bondage.  0  just  yet  merciful  God !  en 
lighten  the  slave  and  his  master  in  these  United  States,  at  once  and 
always  to  do  Thy  will !" 

Now  this  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  rhetoric  which  has  become  so 
common,  of  late  years,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  taking  it  for  granted 
that  the  slave  must  be  made  a  brute,  without  mind,  soul,  will,  or  right, 
a  mere  chattel;  although  these  gentlemen  must  know  that  among  the 
ancients  the  slaves  were  often  highly  educated  to  be  instructors  of 
youth,  that  Esop  was  a  slave,  and  Terence  was  a  slave,  and  Epictetus 
was  a  slave,  while  amongst  the  slave  population  of  the  South,  enough 
of  their  negroes  have  been  taught  and  emancipated  to  plant  the  new 
State  of  Liberia,  and  of  those  who  still  remain  with  their  masters, 
nearly  five  hundred  thousand  are  reported  as  members  of  Christian 
societies,  in  good  standing.  These  facts  being  perfectly  notorious, 
one  can  hardly  read  such  a  display  of  our  commentator's  anti-slavery 
prejudice  without  desiring  that  he  might  study  the  Ninth  Command- 


162  COMPREHENSIVE   COMMENTARY. 

merit,  "Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbor,"  with 
a  wholesome  regard  to  personal  application. 

On  the  text  quoted  from  Eph.  G  :  5-9,  Servants,  be  obedient  to  your 
masters,  etc.,  the  notes  of  Henry  and  Scott  are  repeated  in  this  com 
mentary,  as  I  have  already  given  them,  and  so  are  they  likewise  in 
the  corresponding  passage,  Col.  3  :  22 :  Servants,  obey  in  all? things 
your  masters  according  to  the  flesh,  etc. 

And  in  that  strong  and  most  important  precept  delivered  by  St. 
Paul  to  the  first  bishop  of  Ephesus,  1  Tim.  6  :  1-5,  Let  as  many  serv 
ants  as  are  under  the  yolce  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  all 
honor,  etc.,  Henry  and  Scott  are  again  employed  in  the  Comprehen 
sive  Commentary.  And  the  same  authors  meet  us  again,  in  the  pre 
face  and  notes  to  the  Epistle  to  Philemon.  Thus,  in  the  preface  we 
read  as  follows  :  "  Philemon,  one  of  note,  and  probably  a  minister  in 
the  Church  of  Colosse,  had  a  servant  named  Onesimus,  who,  having 
purloined  his  goods,  ran  away  from  him  and  came  to  Rome,  where 
Paul  was  then  a  prisoner  for  the  Gospel,  and  providentially  coming 
under  his  preaching  there,  was,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  converted  by 
him  ;  after  which  he  ministered  awhile  to  the  Apostle  in  bonds,  and 
might  have  been  further  useful  to  him ;  but  he,  understanding  him  to 
be  another  man's  servant,  would  not,  without  his  consent,  detain  him, 
but  sends  him  back  with  this  letter  commendatory,  wherein  he  earn 
estly  sues  for  his  pardon  and  kind  reception." 

V.  16.  Not  now  as  a  servant,  "that  is,"  saith  this  commentary, 
"  not  merely  or  so  much,  but  above  a  servant,  in  a  spiritual  respect, 
a  brother  beloved,  one  to  be  owned  as  a  brother  in  Christ,"  etc. 

"  But  why  such  concern  and  earnestness  for  a  servant,  a  slave,  and 
such  a  one  as  had  misbehaved  ?  Answer.  Onesimus  being  now  peni 
tent,  it  was  doubtless  to  encourage  him,  and  to  support  him  in  return 
ing  to  his  master." 

V.  18.  Put  that  on  my  account.  "  Paul  here  engages  for  satisfac 
tion.  "Whence  observe,  first,  The  communion  of  saints  does  not  de 
stroy  distinction  of  property.  Onesimus,  now  converted  and  become 
a  brother  beloved,  is  yet  Philemon's  servant  still,  and  indebted  to  him 
for  wrongs  he  had  done,  and  not  to  be  discharged  but  by  free  and 
voluntary  remission,"  etc. 

Here,  my  Right  Reverend  Brother,  I  shall  close  for  the  present 
my  extracts  from  the  commentators  of  the  nineteenth  century,  having 
proved  that  notwithstanding  their  occasional  exhibitions  of  anti-slav- 


SUMMAKY.  163 

ery  prejudice,  yet  their  explanations  of  the  Bible  are  usually  the  same 
with  the  rest,  the  exceptions  being  very  few,  and  those,  as  I  shall 
show  by  and  by,  being  of  no  importance  to  the  general  argument. 
Dr.  Clarke  rages  most  wildly  indeed  in  one  place  against  the  institu 
tion  of  slavery,  and  Dr.  Scott  is  very  zealous  for  the  abolition  of  the 
slave-trade,  in  which  we  all  agree.  But  none  of  them  can  be  found 
denying  the  main  facts,  or  imputing  it  as  a  sin  in  any  Christian  man 
to  own  a  slave,  provided  it  be  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  land, 
and  the  slave  be  treated  with  kindness  and  with  justice,  in  obedience 
to  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel.  None  of  them  denounces  the  right  of 
property  in  the  master,  nor  the  duty  of  obedience  and  fidelity  on  the 
part  of  the  slave.  None  of  them  maintains  the  doctrine  of  the  ultra- 
abolitionist,  that  the  slave  ought  to  run  away,  and  that  if  his  master 
should  reclaim  him,  he  may  be  justified  in  forcible  resistance  even 
unto  death,  in  the  pursuit  of  his  liberty. 

I  shall  now,  however,  revert  to  the  commentators  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  by  whom  I  maintained  that  the  original  doctrine  of  the 
Church  was  still  preserved  in  its  primitive  integrity ;  and  after  I  shall 
have  gone  through  this  list,  the  way  will  be  clear  for  the  remaining 
portions  of  my  undertaking. 


164  GILL. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  Exposition  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  by  Dr.  Gill,  is  one  of  the  most  learned  and  highly  es 
teemed  works  of  modern  times,  in  the  judgment  of  very  many,  and 
holds  the  first  rank  in  the  Baptist  denomination.  I  shall  next  take 
up  this,  and  quote  its  authority  on  the  texts  in  question. 

On  the  prophecy  of  Noah,  Gen.  9  :  22,  our  commentator  saith : 
"  It  may  seem  strange  that  Canaan  should  be  cursed,  and  not  Ham, 
who  seems  to  be  the  only  transgressor  by  what  is  said  in  the  context ; 
hence  one  copy  of  the  Septuagint,  as  Ainsworth  observes,  reads  Ham, 
and  the  Arabic  writers,  the  father  of  Canaan,  and  so,  as  Aben  Ezra, 
relates,  Saadiah  Gaon  supplies  it,  and  the  same  supplement  is  made 
by  others.  But  as  ~boih  were  guilty,  and  Canaan  particularly  was 
first  in  the  transgression,  it  seems  most  wise  and  just  that  he  should 
be  expressly  named,  since  hereby  Ham  is  not  excluded  from  a  share 
in  the  punishment  of  the  crime  he  had  a  concern  in,  being  punished 
in  his  son — Canaan  only,  and  not  any  of  the  other  sons  of  Ham, 
were  guilty  :  he,  and  not  Ham  by  name,  is  cursed,  lest  it  should  be 
thought  that  the  curse  would  fall  on  Ham  and  all  his  posterity,  wher- 
as  the  curse  descends  on  him,  and  very  justly  proceeds  in  the  line 
of  Canaan — the  father  of  the  accursed  race  of  the  Canaanites,  whom 
God  abhorred,  and  for  their  wickedness,  was  about  to  drive  out  of 
their  land,  and  give  it  to  his  people  for  an  inheritance,"  etc. 

According  to  this  learned  author,  therefore,  the  curse  descended  on 
Ham,  and  proceeds  in  the  line  of  Canaan.  And  in  his  notes  upon 
the  line  of  Canaan,  whose  children  are  named  in  the  fifteenth  verse, 
he  saith  that  as  the  families  of  the  Canaanites  increased,  uthey 
spread  themselves  farther  every  way,"  although  his  elaborate  attempt 
to  trace  their  course,  like  all  similar  efforts,  amounts  to  nothing,  be 
cause  there  is  no  history  to  guide  us,  beyond  the  outline  given  by 
Scripture,  and  all  that  can  be  done  must  be  limited  to  probable  con 
jecture. 


GILL.  165 

With  respect  to  Abraham's  servants,  Gen.  14 :  14,  Dr.  Gill  saith 
that  they  were  "  lorn  in  his  own  house,  of  his  servants,  and  so  were 
his  property,  and  at  his  disposal  and  command;  their  number  was 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  —  a  large  number  for  servants,  which 
showed  how  great  a  man  Abraham  was,  what  possessions  he  must 
have  to  employ  so  many,"  etc. 

On  Gen.  16  :  3,  he  saith,  that  Hagar  was  "the  secondary  wife  or 
concubine  "  of  Abraham.  That  this  did  not  change  her  condition  as 
a  slave  is  plain,  because,  when  she  ran  away,  "  she  acknowledged  Sarai 
to  be  her  mistress,"  and  the  angel  of  the  Lord  commands  her  accord 
ingly,  "Return  to  thy  mistress  and  submit  thyself  to  her  hands;  go 
back  to  her,  acknowledge  thy  fault,  do  her  work,  be'ar  her  corrections 
and  chastisements,  and  suffer  thyself  to  le  afflicted  by  her,  as  the 
word  may  be  rendered ;  take  all  patiently  from  her,  which  will  be 
much  more  to  thy  profit  and  advantage  than  to  pursue  the  course 
thou  art  in." 

In  his  notes  on  Gen.  17  :  12,  where  circumcision  is  commanded  for 
those  who  were  lorn  in  the  house,  or  lought  with  money  of  any 
stranger,  not  being  of  Abraham's  seed,  Dr.  Gill  quotes  from  Maimon- 
ides  the  following  rules:  "A  servant  born  in  the  power  of  an 
Israelite,  and  another  that  is  taken  from  heathens,  the  master  is 
bound  to  circumcise  them,  but  he  that  is  born  in  the  house  is  circum 
cised  the  eighth  day,  and  he  that  is  bought  with  money  is  circum 
cised  on  the  day  that  he  is  received ;  even  if  he  received  him  on  the 
day  he  is  born,  he  is  circumcised  on  that  day.  If  he  receives  a  grown 
servant  of  heathens,  and  the  servant  is  not  willing  to  be  circumcised, 
he  bears  with  him  a  whole  year ;  but  more  than  that  he  is  forbidden 
to  keep  him,  seeing  he  is  uncircumcised,  lut  he  must  send  him  again 
to  the  heathens" 

On  Exod.  20,  our  commentator  saith,  in  his  notes  on  the  Fourth 
Commandment,  thy  man-servant  and  thy  maid-servant,  "  this  is  to 
be  understood,  according  to  the  Jews,  not  of  hired  servants,  con 
cerning  whose  rest  from  labor  a  man  was  not  bound,  lut  of  such  as 
were  lorn  in  the  house  and  lought  with  their  money,  and  of  such 
men-servants  as  were  circumcised,  and  in  all  things  professed  to  be 
proselytes  to  the  Jewish  religion." 

And  in  his  comment  on  the  Tenth  Commandment,  thou  shalt  not 
covet  thy  neighbor's  house,  nor  his  man-servant  nor  his  maid-servant, 
etc.,  he  saith,  this  "  serves  to  explain  the  Eighth  Commandment, 


166  GILL. 

showing  that  we  are  not  only  forbid  to  take  away  whafis  another 
man's  property,  any  of  the  goods  here  mentioned,  or  any  other,  but 
we  are  not  secretly  to  desire  them,"  etc. 

On  Exod.  21  :  4,  If  his  master  have  given  him  a  wife,  Dr.  Gill  ex 
plains  it  as  meaning:  "  One  of  his  slaves,  a  Oanaanitish  woman,  on 
purpose  to  beget  slaves  on  her,  since  all  lorn  in  his  house  were  his 
own" 

The  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Leviticus,  verse  44,  Both  thy  bondmen 
and  thy  bondmaids  which  thou  shalt  have,  etc.,  is  thus  explained  by 
our  commentator:  "Such  it  seems  were  allowed  them — but  they 
were  not  to  be  of  the  nation  of  Israel,  but  of  other  nations — they 
shall  he  of  the  heathens  that  are  round  about  thee,  of  them  shall  ye 
l)uy  bondmen  and,  bondmaids ;  that  is,  of  the  Ammonites,  Moabites, 
Edomites,  and  Syrians,  as  Aben  Ezra  saith,  that  were  their  neigh 
bors,  OF  ANY  BUT  THE  SEVEN  NATIONS  WHICH  THEY  WERE  ORDERED  UT 
TERLY  TO  DESTROY  ;  whereupon  Jarchi  observes,  It  is  said,  that  are 
round  about  thee,  not  in  the  midst  of  the  border  of  your  land,  for 
them  they  were  not  to  save  alive."  (Deut.  20  :  16.) 

V.  45.  Moreover,  of  the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do  sojourn 
among  you,  etc.  "  The  uncircumcised  sojourners,"  saith  Dr.  Gill, 
"as  they  are  called  in  the  Targums  of  Onkelos  and  Jonathan,  prose 
lytes  of  the  gate,  such  of  the  nations  round  about,  who  came  and 
sojourned  among  them,  being  subject  to  the  precepts  given  to  the 
sons  of  Noah  respecting  idolatry,  etc.,  but  were  not  circumcised,  and 
did  not  embrace  the  Jewish  religion ;  of  them  shall  ye  buy  for  bond 
men  and  bondmaids,  and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you,  which 
they  begat  in  your  land,  but,  as  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  adds,  are 
not  of  the  Canaanites." 

Here  our  learned  commentator  shows  clearly  the  judgment  of  the 
highest  Jewish  authorities,  proving  that  the  decree  of  slavery  did  not 
apply  to  the  seven  nations  who  were  ordered  to  be  destroyed,  when 
the  land  of  Canaan  was  given  to  the  Israelites  for  a  possession,  but  to 
the  other  idolatrous  nations:  and  therefore  we  see,  first,  that  the 
Jews  were  authorized  to  buy  slaves  of  any  heathen  people ;  and  sec 
ondly,  that  the  prophecy  of  Noah  was  not  to  be  limited  to  that  por 
tion  of  the  race  of  Canaan  which  inhabited  the  promised  land,  but 
should  be  extended  to  all  the  rest  of  his  posterity.  For  when  we 
read  that  the  sons  of  Canaan  included  eleven  distinct  names,  and  that 
their  families  were  spread  abroad  many  centuries  before  the  time  of 


GILL.  167 

Moses,  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  they  were  not  to  be  found  in 
many  other  parts  of  Africa,  the  land  of  Ham,  besides  that  portion  of 
them  which  had  settled  in  Palestine. 

V.  46.  And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children 
after  you,  etc.  "Which,"  continues  Dr.  Gill,  "they  might  leave 
them  at  their  death  to  inherit,  as  they  did  their  estates  and  lands  ; 
for  such  servants  are,  with  the  Jews,  said  to  be  like  immovable  goods' 
as  fields,  vineyards,  etc.,  to  inherit  them  for  a  possession,  as  their  pro 
perty,  as  any  thing  else  that  was  bequeathed  to  them,  as  negroes  now 
are  in  our  plantations  abroad;  they  shall  le  your  bondmen  forever, 

and  NOT  BE  RELEASED  AT  THE  YEAR  OF  JUBILEE,  NOR  BEFORE  NOR  AFTER  ' 

unless  they  obtained  their  liberty  either  by  purchase  or  by  a  writing 
under  their  master's  hand,"  etc. 

On  the  favorite  text  of  the  ultra-abolitionist,  "  Thou  shalt  not  de 
liver  unto  his  master  the  servant  which  is  escaped  from  his  master 
unto  thee,  Deut.  23  :  15,  Dr.  Gill  gives  this  commentary  :   "  That  is," 
saith  he,  "  one  that  has  been  used  ill  by  a  cruel  and  tyrannical  master, 
and  was  in  danger  of  his  life  with  him,  and  therefore  obliged  to  make 
his  escape  from  him  on  that  account ;  such  an  one  when  he  fell  into 
the  hands  of  an  Israelite,  was  not  to  be  taken  and  bound  and  sent  back 
to  his  master  again,  but  was  to  be  retained  till  his  master's  anger 
subsided,  or  however,  until  inquiry  could  be  made  into  the  cause* of 
the  difference  between  him  and  his  master,  and  matters  made  up  be 
tween  them  to  mutual  satisfaction;  for  it  can  not  be  thought  that  this 
law  was  made  to  encourage  every  idle,  disobedient,  and  fugitive  serv 
ant,  which  would  be  very  sinful  and  unjust.     The  Jewish  writers 
generally  understand  it  of  the  servants  of  idolaters,  fleeing  for  the 
sake  of  religion.      Onlcelos  renders  it  '  a  servant  of  heathen  people  ' 
The  Targum  of  Jonathan  is :  '  Thou  shalt  not  deliver  a  stranger  into 
the  hands  of  those  that  worship  idols,  but  he  shall  be  delivered  by 
you  that  he  may  be  under  the  shadow  of  my  SheUnah,  because  he 
hath  fled  from  the  worship  of  his  idol.'     Aben  Ezra  interprets  it  of 
a  servant,  not  an  Israelite,  who,  in  time  of  war,  flees  from  his  master 
not  an  Israelite  also,  unto  the  camp  of  Israel,  and  that  for  the  glory 
of  the  divine  name.     Such  an  one,  though  a  servant,  might  not  be  de 
livered  to  his  master." 

And  on  the  text  in  Deut.  24  :  7,  If  a  man  I e  found  stealing  any 
of  his  brethren  of  the  children  of  Israel,  our  commentator  saith- 

Whether  grown  up  or  little,  male  or  female,  an  Israelite  or  a  prose- 


168  GILL. 

l}Tte,  or  a  freed  servant,  all,  as  Maimonides  says,  are  included  in  this 
general  word,  brethren  ;  though  Aben  Ezra  observes  that  it  is  added 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  for  explanation,  since  an  Edomite  is  called 
a  brother.  Now  a  man  must  be  found  committing  this  fact ;  that  is, 
it  must  plainly  appear ;  there  must  be  full  proof  of  it  by  witnesses,  as 
Jarchi  explains  this  word,"  etc. 

It  is  perfectly  manifest,  according  to  this  and  the  other  commenta 
tors,  that  the  attempt  of  the  ultra-abolitionist  to  press  these  texts  into 
his  service  is  in  utter  contradiction  of  all  the  doctors  among  the  Jews  ; 
as  well  as  all  the  Christian  writers  anterior  to  Scott  and  Clarke, 
who  belong  to  the  innovating  school  of  the  nineteenth  century.  And 
now  I  shall  proceed  to  those  texts  in  the  New  Testament,  which  are 
the  chief  guides  to  the  Church  of  Christ. 

Beginning  as  before  with  1  Cor.  7  :  21,  Art  thou  called  "being  a 
servant,  etc.,  Dr.  Gill  gives  the  following  comment,  viz.,  "  That  is," 
saith  he,  "  art  thou  called  by  grace  whilst  in  the  condition  of  a  serv 
ant,  care  not  for  it — be  not  anxiously  solicitous  to  be  otherwise  ; 
bear  the  yoke  patiently,  go  through  thy  servitude  cheerfully,  and 
serve  thy  master  faithfully,  "but  if  thou  mayest  be  made  free  use  it 
rather.  The  Syriac  version  renders  the  last  clause,  choose  for  thyself 
rather  to  serve;  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  sense  given  of  the  words 
by  several  great  critics  and  excellent  interpreters,  who  take  the  Apos 
tle's  meaning  to  be,  that  should  a  Christian  servant  have  an  oppor 
tunity  of  making  his  escape  from  his  master,  or  could  he  by  any  art, 
trick,  and  fraudulent  method  obtain  his  liberty,  it  would  be  much 
more  advisable  to  continue  a  servant  than  to  become  free  by  any  such 
means.  Yea,  some  carry  the  sense  so  far,  that  even  if  the  servants 
could  be  made  free  in  a  lawful  way,  yet  servitude  was  most  eligible, 
both  for  their  own  and  their  masters'  good  ;  for  their  own,  to  keep 
them  humble,  and  exercise  their  patience  ;  for  their  masters'  not  only 
temporal  but  spiritual  good,  since  by  their  good  behavior  they  might 
be  a  means  of  recommending  the  Gospel  to  them,  and  of  gaining  them 
to  Christ.  But  one  should  rather  think  the  more  obvious  sense  is, 
that  when  a  Christian  servant  has  his  freedom  offered  him  by  his 
master,  or  he  can  come  at  it  in  a  lawful  and  honorable  way,  this  being 
preferable  to  servitude,  he  ought  rather  to  make  use  of  it,  since  he 
would  be  in  a  better  situation  and  more  at  leisure  to  serve  Christ  and 
the  interest  of  religion." 

The  comment  of  Dr.  Gill  on  Eph.  6  :  5,  Servants,  be  obedient  to 


GILL.  169 

them  that  are  your  masters,  etc.,  is  very  clear,  and  in  perfect  accord 
ance  with  all  the  others,  viz. :  "  The  Apostle,"  saith  he,  "enlarges  on 
the  duty  of  servants,  as  well  as  frequently  inculcates  it  in  his  epistles, 
because,  generally  speaking,  they  were  more  rude  and  ignorant,  and 
less  pains  were  taken  with  them  to  instruct  them  ;  they  were  apt  to 
be  impatient  and  weary  of  the  yoke,  and  scandal  was  likely  to  arise 
from  servants  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity  through  some  libertines, 
and  the  licentiousness  of  the  false  teachers  who  insinuated  that  servi 
tude  was  inconsistent  with  Christian  freedom  ;  the  persons  exhorted 
are  servants,  bond-servants,  and  hired  servants,  who  are  to  be  subject 
to  and  obey  their  masters,  of  each  sex,  whether  believers  or  unbe- 
lieveys,  good  or  bad-humored,  gentle  or  froward— in  things  pertain 
ing  to  the  flesh,  in  things  temporal,  which  concern  the  body  and  this 
temporal  life,  not  in  things  spiritual  and  religious,  that  belong  to  con 
science.  And  obedience  is  to  be  yielded  to  them  with  fear  and 
trembling,  with  great  humility  and  respect,  with  submission  to  their 
reproofs  and  corrections,  and  with  fear  of  punishment,  but  more  espe 
cially  with  the  fear  of  God,  in  singleness  of  heart,  without  hypocrisy 
and  dissimulation,  and  with  all  integrity  and  faithfulness  as  unto 
Christ,  it  being  agreeable  to  His  will,  and  what  makes  for  His  glory, 
and  serves  to  adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour  in  all  things." 

On  1  Tim.  6  :  1,  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yoke,  etc. 
the  same  commentator  writes  as  follows  :  "Under  the  yoke  of  govern 
ment,  as  the  Arabic  version  renders  it,  that  is,  under  the  yoke  of  men, 
in  a  state  of  servitude,  under  the  government  of  masters  and  in  their 
service,  being  either  apprentices  to  them  or  bought  with  their  money, 
or  hired  by  them,  let  them  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  all 
honor,  and  give  it  them,  which  includes  subjection  to  them,  obedience 
to  all  their  lawful  commands,"  etc. 

Verse  3.  If  any  man  tea-ch  otherwise,  etc.,  or  "  another  doctrine, 
as  the  Syriac  version  renders  it,  a  doctrine  different  from  what  the 
Apostle  had  now  taught  concerning  the  duty  of  servants  to  their  mas 
ters,  as  did  the  false  teachers  who  despised  government  or  domin 
ion,"  etc. 

Verse  4.  He  is  proud,  knowing  nothing,  etc.  "  Or  swelled  up," 
continues  Dr.  Gill,  "  with  a  vain  conceit  of  himself  and  his  own  no 
tions,  and  treats  with  a  haughty  air  the  faithful  ministers  of  the  Word, 
knowing  nothing  as  he  ought  to  know,  not  any  thing  substantial,  hut 
doting  about  questions  and  strifes  of  words,  or  his  mind  is  distem- 


170  GILL. 

pered,  his  head  is  light  and  wild,  his  fancy  is  roving,  and  he  talks  of 
things  he  knows  not  what,  the  ill  effects  of  which  are  as  follow, 
whereof  cometh  envy  and  strife,  contention,  quarreling,  the  peace  and 
comfort  of  particular  persons,  and  even  of  ichole  communities  are 
broken  and  destroyed  thereby  ;  yea,  these  also  produce  railings  at 
one  another,  and  especially  at  the  faithful  ministers  of  the  Gospel :  for 
when  the  false  teachers  can  not  overcome  them  by  Scripture  and  ar 
gument,  they  fall  to  railing  and  reviling  of  them"  etc.  "  Wherefore 
the  Apostle  gives  the  following  advice  to  Timothy,  and  through  him 
to  all  ministers  and  churches.  From  such  withdraw  thyself ;  do  not 
come  near  them,  have  nothing  to  do  with  them,  have  no  communion 
with  them,  either  in  a  civil  or  religious  way  ;  avoid  all  conversation 
with  them,"  etc. 

As  to  the  EpJstle  of  St.  Paul  to  Philemon,  Dr.  Gill  agrees  with  all 
the  other  commentators.  "  The  design  of  the  epistle,"  saith  he,  "  was 
this :  Philemon's  servant,  Onesimus,  having  either  embezzled  his 
master's  goods  or  robbed  him,  ran  way  from  him  and  fled  to  Rome, 
where  the  Apostle  was  a  prisoner,  in  chains,  in  his  own  hired  house, 
under  the  custody  of  a  soldier,  and  where  he  received  all  that  came, 
and  preached  the  Gospel  to  them.  Among  those  that  went  to  hear 
him  this  fugitive  servant  was  one,  and  was  converted  under  his  min 
istry.  Now  the  design  of  this  epistle  is  to  reconcile  Philemon  to  his 
servant,  and  to  entreat  him  to  receive  him  again,  not  only  as  a  serv 
ant,  but  as  a  brother  in  Christ ;  and  the  most  proper  and  prudent  me 
thods  and  arguments  are  used  to  engage  him  in  it.  The  epistle, 
though  it  is  a  familiar  one  and  short,  is  very  instructive  ;  it  shows 
great  humility  in  the  Apostle,  and  that  he  did  not  think  it  below  him 
to  be  concerned  in  doing  such  an  office  as  to  reconcile  a  master  to  his 
servant,  and  which  is  worthy  of  imitation  ;  as  also  it  teaches  the  right 
that  masters  have  over  their  servants,  which  is  not  lost  J)y  their  be 
coming  Christians,'1''  etc. 

I  shall  only  add  one  extract  more  from  this  learned  commentator, 
viz.,  on  1  Pet.  2  :  18,  Servants,  ~be  subject  to  your  masters,  etc. 
'*  This,"  saith  Dr.  Gill,  "  was  another  notion  of  the  Jews,  that  be 
cause  they  were  the  seed  of  Abraham,  they  ought  not  to  be  the  serv 
ants  of  any ;  and  particularly  such  as  were  believers  in  Christ,  thought 
they  ought  not  to  serve  unbelieving  masters,  nor  indeed  believing 
ones,  because  they  were  equally  brethren  in  Christ  with  them.  Hence 
the  Apostle  Peter  here,  as  the  Apostle  Paul  frequently  elsewhere,  in- 


GILL.  171 

culcates  this  duty  of  servants  to  their  masters :  the  manner  in  which 
they  are  to  be  subject  to  them  is  with  all  fear,  with  reverence  to 
their  persons,  strict  regard  to  their  commands,  faithfulness  in  any 
trust  reposed  in  them,  diligence  in  the  discharge  of  their  duty,  and 
all  this  not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle,  lut  also  to  the  froward,  the 
ill-natured,  morose,  and  rigorous,"  etc. 

I  have  been  thus  copious  in  my  extracts  from  the  exposition  of  Dr. 
Gill,  not  only  in  consideration  of  his  acknowledged  learning,"but  be 
cause  the  various  societies  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  of  which  he 
was  the  most  eminent  oracle  for  a  very  long  period,  form  the  largest 
Christian  body  on  our  continent,  and  deserve  a  proportionate  measure 
of  respectful  attention.  But  now  I  shall  hasten  onward  to  my  re 
maining  authorities,  which  can  be  satisfactorily  dispatched  with 
greater  brevity. 


172  DODDRIDGE. 


CHAPTER    XXI. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Before  I  return  to  the  Episcopalian 
commentators,  there  is  one  name  deservedly  high  in  the  estimation  of 
our  Presbyterian  brethren,  and  of  many  amongst  ourselves,  whom  I 
may  not  pass  by — that  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Doddridge.  From  his  well- 
known  and  greatly  esteemed  Paraphrase,  therefore,  I  quote  the  fol 
lowing  passage  on  Eph.  6  :  5. 

"  There  is  yet  another  relation  between  masters  and  servants,  con 
cerning  which  I  shall  proceed  to  advise  you.  I  would  exhort  you 
who  are  servants,  whether  of  the  meanest  rank,  such  as  bondmen  and 
slaves,  or  in  the  station  only  of  hired  servants,  that  ye  be  subject  and 
obedient  to  those  who  are  your  masters  and  proprietors,  though  they 
be  only  so  according  to  the  flesh." 

And  to  this  I  shall  add  his  Introduction  to  the  Epistle  of  St.  Paul 
to  Philemon,  which  agrees  with  the  preceding  commentators  precisely : 

"Philemon,"  saith  Dr.  Doddridge,  "was  an  inhabitant  of  Colosse. 
He  seems,  from  several  hints  given  in  the  Epistle,  to  have  been  a  per 
son  of  distinction,  particularly  from  the  mention  made  of  the  Church 
in  his  house,  (v.  2,)  and  his  liberal  contributions  to  the  relief  of  the 
saints,  (v.  5,  7,)  and  the  general  strain  of  the  letter  shows  that  the 
Apostle  held  him  in  very  high  esteem,  and  looked  upon  him  as  one 
of  the  great  supports  of  religion  in  that  society." 

"  The  occasion  of  the  letter  was  this :  Onesimus,  Philemon's  slave, 
had  robbed  his  master,  and  fled  to  Rome,  where,  happily  for  him,  he 
met  with  the  Apostle,  and  by  his  instructions  and  admonitions  was 
converted  to  Christianity,  and  reclaimed  to  a  sense  of  his  duty." 

"  St.  Paul  seems  to  have  kept  him  for  some  considerable  time  under 
his  eye,  that  he  mighf  be  satisfied  of  the  reality  of  the  change,  and 
when  he  had  made  a  sufficient  trial  of  him,  and  found  that  his  beha 
vior  was  entirely  agreeable  to  his  profession,  he  would  not  detain  him 
any  longer  for  his  own  private  convenience,  but  sent  him  back  to  his 
master.  And  as  Philemon  might  well  be  supposed  to  be  strongly 


HAMMOND.  173 

prejudiced  against  one  who  had  left  his  service  in  so  infamous  a  man 
ner,  he  sends  him  this  letter,  in  which  he  employs  all  his  influence  to 
remove  his  suspicions,  and  reconcile  him  to  the  thoughts  of  taking 
Onesimus  into  his  family  again." 

The  next  commentary,  and  one  of  much  reputation  amongst  Epis 
copalians,  is  that  which  is  known  as  Hammond's  Paraphrase  and 
Annotations  on  the  New  Testament.  And  here  we  have  the  same 
doctrine  repeated  in  plain  terms.  Thus  the  paraphrase  on  1  Tim. 
6  :  1  is  as  follows,  viz. : 

"  Those  Christians  that  are  bondmen  to  heathens  must  perform  all 
service  and  obedience  to  them  which  belong  to  them  by  the  law  of 
servants  among  the  heathens;  that  the  profession  of  Christianity  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  be  not  looked  upon  by  the  heathens  as  that 
which  makes  men  worse  livers  than  they  were,  neglecting  their  moral 
duties  for  being  Christians." 

"And  those  Christians  that  have  Christian  masters  must  not  with 
draw  any  of  that  obedience  which  is  due  to  them  upon  the  plea  that 
they  are  Christians,  and  so  their  equals  or  brethren  ;  but  think  them 
selves  the  more  obliged  to  serve  them,  because  the  faith  and  love  that 
constitutes  men  Christians  consist  in  helping  to  do  good,  and  conse 
quently  the  performing  due  service  to  them  is  a  very  Christian  thing, 
and  that  which  Christianity  doth  not  less  ~but  more  oblige  them  to. 
There  are  things  of  such  a  nature,  so  much  required  ly  the  Christian 
religion,  and  the  contrary  at  this  time,  so  taught  by  the  Gnostic  he 
retics,  that  it  is  necessary  for  thee  to  give  these  admonitions  to  all." 

The  celebrated  Locke,  as  you  know,  wrote  a  commentary  on  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  which  obtained  considerable  reputation  in  our 
mother  Church  of  England.  And  there  is  a  note  appended  to  his 
remarks  concerning  the  text  in  1.  Cor.  7  :  28,  worthy  of  your  atten 
tion.  It  is  in  these  words,  viz. : 

1  Cor.  7  :  23.  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price.  "Slaves  were  bought 
and  sold  in  the  market,  as  cattle  are,  and  so,  by  the  price  paid,  there 
was  a  property  acquired  in  them.  {This,  therefore,  is  a  reason  for 
what  he  advised  that  they  should  not  be  slaves  to  men,  because 
Christ  had  paid  a  price  for  them,  and  they  belonged  to  Him.  The 
slavery  he  speaks  of  is  civil  slavery,  which  he  makes  use  of  to  con 
vince  the  Corinthians  that  the  civil  ties  of  marriage  were  not  dissolved 
by  a  man's  becoming  a  Christian,  since  slavery  itself  was  not,  and  in 


174 

general,  in  the  next  verse,  he  tells  them,  that  nothing  in  any  marts 
civil  estate  or  rights  is  altered  by  his  becoming  a  Christian" 

I  shall  next  proceed  to  quote  some  portions  of  the  well-known  work 
of  Rev.  George  D'Oyly,  B.D.,  and  Rev.  Richard  Mant,  D.D.,  domestic 
chaplains  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  which  was  published 
under  the  direction  of  the  Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge 
in  England,  and  republished,  with  some  additional  notes,  by  the  emi 
nent  Bishop  Hobart,  as  being  well  adapted  for  our  American  Church,  in 
A.D.  1818.  It  belongs,  therefore,  to  the  present  century,  though 
several  years  anterior  to  the  emancipation  of  the  slaves  in  Jamaica 
by  the  British  Parliament. 

I  commence  with  a  statement  of  the  learned  Dr.  Hales,  which  is 
placed  in  the  notes  on  Gen.  10  :  1 :  "The  following  curious  and 
valuable  commentary,"  saith  he,  "  which  records  the  primitive  settle 
ments  of  the  three  families,  is  furnished  by  Abulfaragi,  in  his  history 
of  the  Dynasties.  '  In  the  one  hundred  and  fortieth  year  of  Phaleg 
the  earth  was  divided,  by  a  second  division,  among  the  sons  of  Noah. 
To  the  sons  of  Shem  was  allotted  the  middle  of  the  earth,  namely, 
Palestine,  Syria,  Assyria,  Samarra,  (a  town  of  Babylonian  or  Chal 
dean  Irac,)  Babel,  Persia,  and  Hegiaz,  (or  Arabian  Petraea.)  To 
the  sons  of  Ham,  Teman,  (or  Idumaea,  Jer.  49  :  7,)  Africa,  Nigritia, 
Egypt,  Nubia,  ^Ethiopia,  Scindia,  and  India,  on  both  sides  of  the  In 
dus.  To  the  sons  of  Japheth  also,  Garbia,  (the  North,)  Spain, 
France,  the  countries  of  the  Greeks,  Sclavonians,  Bulgarians,  Turks, 
and  Armenians." 

Now  here  the  allotment  gives  a  large  range  to  Ham,  but  Palestine 
is  expressly  included  as  belonging  to  Shern,  and  therefore  the  portion 
of  the  Canaanites  who  obtained  possession  of  it  were  not  the  original 
owners  of  the  soil. 

This  fact  would  only  add  another  reason  for  bestowing  the  land  on 
the  Israelites,  who  were  of  the  posterity  of  Shem,  and  had  the  right 
to  claim  it,  as  belonging  to  them  by  express  allotment. 

This  original  distribution  of  the  earth  is  regarded  by  learned  and 
thoughtful  men  as  of  very  high  importance.  For  thus  our  commen 
tary  proceeds  :  "It  was  made,"  saith  Joseph  Mede,  "in  an  orderly 
manner,  and  not  by  a  confused,  irregular  dispersion,  wherein  every 
one  went  and  seated  himself  where  he  thought  good."  And  Bryant 
saith  that  "  This  distribution  was  by  the  immediate  appointment 
of  God.  We  have  full  evidence  of  this  in  that  sublime  and  pathe- 


D'OYLY  AND  MANT.  175 

tic  hymn  of  Moses,  Dcut.  32  :  7,  8,  9.  From  this  we  may  see  th.it 
the  whole  was  by  God's  appointment,  and  that  there  was  a  reserve 
for  the  people  who  were  to  come  after.  St.  Paul  likewise  speaks  of 
it  expressly  as  a  divine  ordinance,  Acts  17  :  26.  This  is  taken  notice 
of  by  many  of  the  fathers.  Eusebius  in  particular  mentions  '  the 
distribution  of  the  earth,'  and  adds  that  it  happened  in  the  two  thou 
sand  six  hundred  and  seventy-second  }rear  of  the  Creation,  and  in 
the  nine  hundred  and  thirtieth  year  of  the  patriarch's  life.  Thus  it 
was  that  Noah,  by  divine  anointment,  divided  the  world  between 
his  three  sons.  It  is  remarkable  that  "  the  Grecians,"  saith  Bryant, 
u  had  some  traditions  of  this  partition  of  the  earth,  which  they  sup 
posed  to  have  been  by  lot,  and  between  Jupiter,  Neptune,  and 
Pluto." 

It  is  further  worthy  of  note,  as  "  Sir  William  Jones  has  demon 
strated,  that  three  great  branches  of  language  are  sufficient  to  account 
for  all  the  varieties  now  extant."  (Calmefs  Dictionary,  Supple 
ment.*) 

That  Melchizedek  was  a  "Canaanitish  prince"  was  the  opinion  of 
Dr.  Hales,  because  he  was  the  king  of  Salem,  "  the  most  ancient 
quarter  of  Jerusalem,"  and  the  name  of  Canaan  is  supposed,  though 
erroneously,  to  have  been  given  to  that  land  in  the  time  of  Abraham, 
Gen.  12  :  5.  But  even  if  this  supposition  were  correct,  I  could  not 
conceive  that  Melchizedek  belonged  to  the  race  of  that  Canaan,  whose 
posterity  had  been  doomed  to  a  curse  by  the  patriarch  Noah.  Noth 
ing  was  more  common  at  that  time,  and  nothing  is  more  common  in 
our  own  day,  than  to  find  the  same  name  given  to  men  and  to  places. 
This  coincidence,  of  itself,  would  therefore  be  entirely  insufficient  to 
prove  that  Melchizedek  was  a  Canaanite  with  respect  to  his  genealogy. 
We  read,  indeed,  in  the  next  verse,  that  "  the  Canaanite  was  then 
in  the  land.  But  by  this,"  as  the  commentator  saith,  "  is  meant,  not 
all  the  posterity  of  Canaan,  or  all  the  Canaanitish  tribes,  but  only 
one  particular  tribe  of  them:'  This  tribe  may  have  been  living 
there,  and  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  may  have  been  built  by  them,  and 
become  petty  principalities  long  before,  without  interfering  with  the 
king  of  Salem,  Melchizedek. 

I  consider  it  altogether  more  reasonable,  therefore,  to  regard  this 
priest  and  king  as  of  the  race  of  Shem,  in  whom  the  prophecy  of 
Noah  had  placed  the  high  prerogative  of  belonging  specially  to  the 
Lord  God,  "Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Shem."  For  to  this  "king 


176  MELCHIZEDEK. 

of  righteousness  and  prince  of  peace "  the  chief  rank  of  religious 
privilege  had  been  vouchsafed,  in  being  the  eminent  type  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  a  priest  of  the  Most  High  God,  and  set  before  all 
others  in  this  respect,  that  the  divine  Redeemer  was  to  be  "  a  priest 
forever,  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek." 

The  trifling  extent  of  kingdoms,  even  five  centuries  later  than  the 
time  of  Abraham,  may  be  easily  inferred  from  the  fact  that  Joshua 
smote  thirty-one  kings,  although  he  did  not  conquer  the  whole  land 
of  Canaan.  Hence  it  is  obvious,  as  saith  Bishop  Patrick,  that  "  by 
the  term  '  Kings '  we  are  merely  to  understand  petty  princes  or  lords 
perhaps  of  some  single  cities,  with  a  few  dependent  villages,  whose 
inhabitants  were  their  tenants."  (Joshua  12  :  24.)  One  of  these 
kings  was  the  king  of  Ai,  the  population  of  which  is  stated  to  have 
been  twelve  thousand  ;  but  this  was  much  smaller  than  many  of  the 
others. 

With  respect  to  Melchizedek,  however,  Pool,  in  the  Synopsis  Criti. 
corum,  saith  that  the  oldest  and  best  of  the  Hebrew  doctors  sup 
posed  him  to  be  the  patriarch  Shem  himself.  "  Noah  constituit  Sem 
dominum  terra  Canaan,  speciali  titulo.  Hue  ergo  venit  Scm,  et 
urbem  Salem  cedificavit,  et  Me  regnavit,"  i.  e.,  Noah  appointed  Shem 
to  be  lord  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  by  special  title.  Here,  therefore? 
Shem  came,  and  built  the  city  of  Salem,  and  reigned  there.  The 
name  Melchizedelc,  signifying  the  "  king  of  righteousness,"  was  given 
to  him,  according  to  St.  Augustin  and  others,  as  a  title  of  honor,  and 
was  not  his  proper  name ;  just  as  we  see  that  names  of  the  same  sort 
were  given  to  many  other  persons  in  the  Old  Testament.  And  the 
text  might  have  been  translated  with  perfect  propriety,  "  The  Icing 
of  righteousness,  who  icas  the  king  of  Salem,  brought  forth  bread 
and  wine,"  etc.  (Gen.  14  :  18.)  So,  in  the  110th  Psalm,  "  The  Lord 
sware  and  will  not  repent,  Thou  art  a  priest  forever,  after  the 
order  of  Melchizedelc"  might  have  been  rendered,  "  after  the  order 
of  the  king  of  righteousness."  St.  Paul,  referring  to  this  name  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  is  careful  to  give  its  signification,  as  also  that 
of  Salem,  which  is  "  Peace,"  so  that  on  the  whole  there  is  a  strong 
probabilit}r  that  the  Jewish  doctors  were  right  in  their  hypothesis, 
and  we  may  confidently  say  that  no  good  reason  can  be  brought 
against  it. 

The  argument,  therefore,  which  I  have  already,  in  part,  indicated, 
will  stand  thus : 


CANAANITES  IN  AFRICA.  177 

First,  we  have  the  prophecy  of  Noah,  in  which  the  name  of  Canaan, 
signifying  Humiliation,  is  given  to  the  son  of  Ham  ;  and  his  pos 
terity  are  doomed  to  servitude  in  its  lowest  form,  slavery.  (Gen. 
9  :  25.) 

Next,  we  have  the  sons  anA  descendants  of  Canaan  set  forth, 
Sidon,  Heth,  the  Jebusite,  the  Amorite,  the  Girgasite,  the  Hivite,  the 
Arkite,  the  Sinite,  the  Arvadite,  the  Zemarite,  and  the  Hamathite, 
eleven  different  names  in  all,  and  considerably  exceeding  the  number 
set  down  to  the  brethren  of  Canaan.  For  the  sons  of  Gush  were 
Seba,  Havilah,  Sabtah,  Ramah,  and  Sabtichah,  only  Jive.  Mizraim 
begat  Ludim,  Anamim,  Lehabim,  Naphtuhim,  Pathrusim,  Casluhim, 
and  Caphtorim,  only  seven,  while  the  children  of  Phut  are  not  named 
at  all.  Thus  we  have  eleven  names  set  down  to  Canaan,  and  twelve 
to  Gush  and  Mizraim  both  together,  plainly  leading  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  posterity  of  Ham,  in  the  line  of  Canaan,  was  almost  one 
half  of  the  population  to  which  Africa  was  to  be  assigned.  (Gen.  10.) 

In  the  third  place,  we  have  an  intimation  of  the  wide  diffusion  of 
Canaan's  descendants,  in  the  statement  of  the  sacred  historian,  that 
"afterwards  were  the  families  of  the  Canaanites  spread  abroad" 
(Gen.  10  :  18) — a  statement  which  is  not  made  concerning  any  other 
part  of  Ham's  posterity. 

Fourthly,  we  have  the  fact,  that  in  the  days  of  Peleg  the  earth  was 
divided.  (Gen.  10  :  25.)  And  we  have  seen  the  tradition  of  the 
Jews,  as  stated  by  Abulfaragi,  together  with  the  extracts  from 
Mede  and  Bryant,  referring  to  Eusebius  and  many  of  the  fathers, 
that  this  division  was  by  divine  appointment,  under  the  authority 
of  Noah,  and  in  the  nine  hundred  and  thirtieth  year  of  the  patri 
arch's  life.  In  this  division,  Africa  fell  to  the  lot  of  Ham's  posterity, 
Asia  to  that  of  Shem,  and  Europe  to  that  of  Japheth,  while  Palestine 
is  specially  mentioned  as  belonging  to  Shem.  But  there  is  a 
statement  in  Gen.  10  :  19,  which  appears  to  be,  at  first  sight,  incon 
sistent  with  this  arrangement.  For  there  we  read  that  "  the  border 
of  the  Canaanites  was  from  Sidon,  as  thou  comest  to  Gerar,  unto 
Gaza,  as  thou  goest  unto  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,"  which  certainly 
looks  like  a  location  of  the  Canaanites  in  Palestine.  This  difficulty, 
however,  arises  only  from  the  introduction  of  the  definite  article, 
which  is  not  authorized  by  the  original  Hebrew.  Instead  of  "  the 
border  of  the  Canaanites,"  it  should  be  a  border  of  the  Canaanites, 
meaning  that  Palestine  was  one  of  the  places  into  which  their  fami- 
8* 


178  CANAANITES  IN  AFRICA. 

lies  had  "spread  abroad"  We  have  seen  that  eleven  heads  of  tribes 
proceeded  from  Canaan,  and  we  know  that  only  seven  of  them  were 
established  in  the  promised  land,  five  hundred  years  after  Abraham 
went  there.  And  therefore  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  at  this 
time,  namely,  when  Abraham  became  a  resident,  a  small  portion — 
perhaps,  as  Bishop  Patrick  estimated  it,  part  of  one  tribe  of  Canaan's 
descendants — had  emigrated  from  Africa,  and  made  a  settlement  in 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  for  "  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land," 
(Gen.  12  :  G,)  while  the  far  greater  bulk  of  them  still  remained  in  the 
land  of  Ham,  namely,  in  Africa,  their  allotted  heritage. 

Fifthly,  we  read  of  Melchizedek,  or  u  the  King  of  righteousness," 
in  Salem,  the  principal  city  in  Palestine,  whom  we  can  not  reasonably 
suppose  to  be  of  the  race  of  Canaan,  but  either  Shem  himself,  or  one 
of  his  posterity.  We  also  find  that  Abraham  and  Lot  met  with  no 
difficulty  in  settling  where  they  pleased  ;  a  plain  proof  that  the  land 
was  at  that  time  unoccupied  to  a  great  extent,  and  open  to  any  emi 
grants  who  chose  to  go  there.  This  fact  is  a  conclusive  demonstra 
tion  that  the  tribe  of  Canaanites  had  then  established  only  a  partial 
and  very  limited  possession,  amounting  to  little  more  than  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah.  Now  there  can  be  no  objection  made  to  this,  except 
what  may  be  predicated  upon  the  single  fact  that  the  whole  region, 
elsewhere  called  Palestine,  is  here  styled  Canaan,  as  if  it  were  the 
proper  and  original  seat  of  the  Canaanites.  And  such,  doubtless, 
has  been  the  general  impression,  although  it  appears  to  my  mind  to 
be  altogether  a  mistaken  one. 

For  we  read,  before  the  full  establishment  of  Abraham,  that  there 
was  a  famine  in  the  land,  "  and  Abraham  went  down  to  sojourn  in 
Egypt."  How  long  he  remained  there,  we  can  not  tell ;  but  after 
his  return,  we  find  that  an  addition  had  been  made  to  the  strangers 
from  abroad,  who  came  into  Canaan.  For  whereas,  before,  we  read 
that  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land,  we  now  read  that  "the 
Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  dwelled  then  in  the  land."  (Gen. 
13.)  From  this  it  is  easy  to  perceive  the  growth  of  the  Canaanitish 
tribes,  by  accessions  of  their  brethren.  The  country  was  delightful. 
It  was  favorable  to  agriculture.  It  was  open  to  the  settler.  And  it 
combined,  with  these  advantages,  a  commodious  position  on  the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  admirably  adapted  to  commerce.  That  the  race 
of  Canaan,  in  those  early  ages,  had  a  spirit  of  active  enterprise  and  a 
fondness  for  trade  and  speculation,  must  be  inferred  from  the  fact 


CANAANITES  IX  AFRICA.  179 

that  the  word  Canaanite  bec«ame,  in  due  time,  synonymous  with 
merchant,  whereas  the  race  of  Shem  was  devoted  to  agricultural  and 
pastoral  life,  as  we  see  in  the  cases  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob  and 
his  sons  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  and  yet  more  especially  in  the  ar 
rangement  which  the  Almighty  made  for  Israel  in  Canaan,  where  a 
farm  was  given  to  every  family. 

But  in  order  to  account  for  the  name  of  Canaan  being  given  to 
Palestine,  in  connection  with  the  commencement  of  Abraham's  resi 
dence,  and  while  the  patriarch  Shem,  or  one  of  his  immediate  pro 
geny,  reigned  as  Melchizedek,  or  the  king  of  righteousness,  in  Salem, 
I  shall  state  my  view  at  large,  which  I  think  will  be  found  in  perfect 
analogy  with  other  historical  facts,  familiar  to  us  all. 

The  most  reasonable  statement  of  the  matter,  in  rny  opinion^is  the 
following,  viz. :  That  Moses,  who  wrote  .this  narrative  for  the  special 
instruction  of  the  Israelites,  some  five  hundred  years  after  Abraham's 
sojourn,  set  down  the  names  of  the  places,  not  as  they  were  known 
then,  but  as  they  were  known  in  his  own  time;  because  his  narrative 
could  not  have  been  understood  by  any  other  method.  Thus  in  Gen. 
10  :  19,  the  names  of  Sidon,  Gerar,  Gaza,  Adrnah,  etc.,  are  not  to  be 
supposed  as  belonging  to  the  places  indicated,  at  that  early  day. 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  indeed,  must  have  been  then  planted  by  the 
Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite,  because  they  were  destroyed  during  the 
life  of  Abraham  and  Lot ;  but  the  other  places  were  probably  not 
known  under  those  names,  until  some  centuries  later. 

Thus,  for  example,  suppose  an  historian  of  our  times,  writing 
about  the  condition  of  the  country  two  hundred  years  ago,  should 
say,  that  the  English  and  the  Dutch  were  then  in  the  land,  but  Mas 
sachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New-Hampshire,  Vermont, 
New-York,  and  Pennsylvania  were  all  a  wilderness,  trodden  by  the 
Indians,  and  the  wild  animals.  This  language  would  be  perfectly 
correct  and  intelligible ;  but  no  one  would  infer  from  it  that  the  region 
of  country,  now  comprehended  by  those  States,  was  then  marked  out 
and  known  by  their  present  appellations.  And  the  historian  would 
be  justified  in  his  mode  of  expression,  because,  even  if  these  portions 
of  the  land  had  acquired  any  names  at  all  in  that  early  period,  those 
names  must  have  been  given  to  them  by  the  Indians,  and  the  re 
cital  of  them  to  us,  would  convey  no  clear  idea  of  the  locality. 

It  seems  manifest,  therefore,  that  when  Moses  speaks  of  Abraham 
coming,  at  the  divine  command,  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  we  are 


180  CANAANITES  IN  AFHICA. 

authorized  to  suppose,  not  that  it  was  then  known  by  that  name,  but 
that  this  was  its  name  at  the  time  when  the  sacred  history  was  writ 
ten ;  and  therefore  he  used  it,  according  to  the  rule  of  common-sense, 
viz.,  in  order  to  be  perfectly  understood  by  those  to  whom  his  his 
tory  was  addressed. 

How  it  came  afterwards  to  be  known  by  that  name  is  easily  com 
prehended.  The  Canaanites  began  by  a  portion  of  one  tribe ;  then 
their  praises  of  the  region  brought  others,  and  so,  by  degrees,  the 
whole  was  settled  by  emigrants  from  the  seven  nations,  whose  com 
mercial  activity  and  enterprise  gained  them  the  distinction  of  being 
the  merchants,  l)y  excellence,  of  the  surrounding  regions.  Their 
great  advancement,  in  numbers  and  in  power,  took  place  while  the 
Israelites  were  in  Egypt,  a  period  longer  than  these  United  States 
have  passed  since  the  first  settlement  of  the  colonists  from  England. 
And  their  commercial  success  had  made  the  word  Canaanite  almost 
synonymous  with  that  of  merchant,  from  which  fact  the  secondary 
meaning  of  the  word  Canaan  was  derived,  according  to  Taylor,  and 
all  our  best  Hebrew  authorities.*  So  that,  in  common  usage,  the 
land  of  Canaan  was  understood  to  be  the  land  of  the  merchant,  or 
the  land  of  commerce,  as  well  as  the  land  of  the  Canaanite.  And 
their  prosperity  and  wealth  became  manifested,  as  in  all  similar 
cases,  by  their  splendid  cities,  walled  round  and  fortified  ;  and  their 
pride  and  licentiousness  increased  with  their  idolatry.  The  curse  of 
Noah  had  long  been  forgotten,  or  derided  in  their  heathenism ;  and 
they  boasted  of  their  genealogy  as  the  largest  and  most  powerful 
race  descended  from  the  patriarch,  whose  families  had  thus  spread 
abroad;  until  at  length,  "the  iniquity  of  the  Amorites"  was  full, 
and  the  decree  of  God  commanded  the  Israelites  to  take  possession 
of  the  land,  and  devote  its  flagitious  inhabitants  to  destruction. 

The  land  of  Canaan  now  became,  therefore,  the  land  of  Israel,  and 
subsequently,  Judea.  The  Canaanites,  as  a  nation  or  nations,  ap- 

*  In  Taylor's  Hebrew  Concordance  we  have  the  following  statement,  viz. : 
9313  hath  two  significations. 

1.  Hwmiliare,  se,  de,priinere,  to  bow  down,  to  bring  low.     Applied  to  the  subduing 
of  a  nation,  to  the  humbling  the  proud,  to  a  wicked  person's  being  humbled  for  his  sins, 
etc. 

2.  Canaan,  negotiator.     Canaan,  the  grandson  of  Noah,  so  called  because  he  was 
depressed  by  his  grandfather  into  the  low  condition  of  a  servant  of  servants.     Gen.  9  :  '25. 
And  because  the  Canaanites  were  much  in  the  mercantile  way  of  life,  hence  a  mer 
chant. 

Of  this  latter  meaning  Taylor  cites  nine  examples. 


HISTORICAL  ANALOGY.  181 

pear  no  more,  under  their  former  names.  But  nevertheless  we  know 
that  the  whole  were  not  exterminated.  A  considerable  portion  re 
mained  whom  the  Israelites  were  not  able  to  expel.  Probably  a 
much  larger  portion  escaped  from  the  sword  of  Joshua,  and  these 
ma}'  have  been  the  founders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  Phoenicia  and 
Carthage,  which  all  agree  to  have  been  planted  by  the  race  of  the 
Canaanites.  The  most  natural  course,  however,  for  many  of  them, 
would  be  to  betake  themselves  to  Africa,  for  that  was  the  land  of 
Ham,  and  there  they  would  have  met  with  the  most  hospitable  re 
ception  from  their  kindred  and  brethren.  And  therefore  I  think  it 
the  more  probable  hypothesis,  that  the  greatest  numbers  of  the  fu 
gitives  from  the  land  of  Canaan  became  the  inhabitants  of  that  region 
which  was  designated  for  their  abode  by  the  division  under  Noah, 
so  many  centuries  before ;  and  with  which  they  had  doubtless  kept 
up  a  friendly  intercourse  of  old  attachment  and  consanguinity,  as 
descendants  from  their  common  progenitor. 

We  thus  behold  the  same  events  in  the  early  history  of  Palestine, 
which  took  place  long  afterwards  among  other  nations.  For  example, 
England  was  originally  inhabited  by  the  Britons,  and  was  known  by 
the  name  of  Britannia.  But  the  Angles  and  the  Saxons  came  in 
from  the  continent,  first  as  friends,  and  then  they  resolved  to  estab 
lish  themselves  as  conquerors.  They  succeeded,  and  the  island  was 
divided  among  seven  independent  powers,  and  they  gave  it  the  new 
name  of  Anglia.  But  these  invaders  were  only  a  part  of  the  whole, 
the  main  body  of  their  race  remaining  on  the  continent. 

So,  in  the  case  of  our  own  country.  It  was  in  possession  of  the 
Indians.  The  English  planted  first  one,  and  then  another  feeble 
colony.  They  multiplied,  and  finally  gained  full  possession,  calling 
the  land  by  new  and  English  names.  But  the  great  body  of  the 
English  remained  at  home,  and  the  numbers  who  emigrated  made  no 
serious  inroad  on  the  increase  of  the  population,  in  the  mother- 
country. 

So  in  the  settlement  of  our  Western  States.  They  received  settlers 
from  the  old  States,  and  grew  rapidly  ;  but  in  no  instance  were  the 
numbers  withdrawn  by  emigration  so  great,  as  to  prevent  the  growth 
of  the  population  which  they  had  left  behind  them. 

Reasoning,  then,  from  all  historical  analogy,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  course  of  the  Canaanites  in  Palestine  was  substantially  the 
same.  The  land  belonged  to  Shem,  by  virtue  of  the  division  made 


182  CANAANITES  IN  AFRICA. 

by  Noah  under  the  divine  direction.  Melchizedek,  the  king  of  right 
eousness,  was  in  possession  at  Salem,  but  the  greater  part  of  the  re 
gion  was  uninhabited,  and  there  was  abundant  room  for  strangers. 
The  Canaanites  found  their  way  into  it  from  Africa,  which  had  been 
allotted  to  Ham  and  his  posterity.  They  came  at  first  in  small  num 
bers.  The  Perizzites,  another  tribe  which  descended  from  Canaan, 
followed.  They  came  as  friends,  and  settled  peaceably,  and  built 
Sodom,  and  Gomorrah,  and  Zoar,  before  Abraham  .arrived  at  the 
command  of  the  Almighty.  By  degrees  they  increased,  and  when 
we  survey  their  condition,  five  centuries  later,  they  had  filled  the 
land,  and  no  trace  of  the  posterity  of  Shem  appears  amongst  them. 
Salem,  which  was  once  the  territory  of  Melchizedek,  had  become  the 
seat  of  the  Jebusites,  who « called  it  Jebus,  and  the  name  of  their 
common  progenitor,  Canaan,  was  given  to  the  whole  region.  But 
we  are  not  to  believe  that  the  entire  body  of  any  of  the  seven  nations 
had  left  Africa.  As  in  the  other  cases  to  which  I  have  referred,  we 
must  suppose  that  only  a  portion,  and  that  the  much  smaller  portion 
of  each,  abandoned  that  continent,  which  was  their  allotted  home. 
And  therefore  we  may  fairly  conclude  that  the  bulk  of  the  eleven 
nations  comprising  the  posterity  of  Canaan  remained  in  Africa,  and 
multiplied  there,  notwithstanding  a  part  of  seven  of  those  nations 
had  emigrated  to  Palestine,  and,  as  in  all  such  instances,  had  "  called 
the  land  after  their  own  name." 

The  result  would  therefore  be  that  the  great  body  of  the  posterity 
of  Canaan,  at  the  time  of  Israel's  invasion,  were  not  in  Palestine,  but 
in  Africa.  We  have  seen  that  his  descendants  included  eleven  dis 
tinct  names,  while  those  of  Gush  were  only  five,  and  those  of  Mizraitn 
only  seven.  Four  of  the  eleven  appear  not  to  have  gone  to  Palestine, 
as  we  only  find  seven  nations  enumerated  there,  whom  the  Israelites 
were  commissioned  to  destroy.  And  these  four,  along  with  the  bulk 
of  the  other  seven  who  had  remained  in  Africa,  the  land  of  Ham, 
not  only  made  up  almost  one  half  of  the  population,  but  must  have 
mingled  their  blood  with  all  the  rest,  by  the  promiscuous  intercourse 
of  the  sexes,  which  has  prevailed  in  that  benighted  continent  for  so 
many  centuries.  And  hence  the  strong  probability  is  that  the  whole 
negro  race,  for  several  ages,  has  been  literally  descended  from  Canaan, 
and  would  therefore  come  within  the  terms  of  Noah's  prophecy,  that 
they  should  be  the  servants  of  their  brethren.  We  have  seen  how 
this  prophecy  is  actually  fulfilled  in  the  present  state  of  'Africa,  from 


OBJECTIONS.  183 

the  statement  of  Malte  Brun,  who  saith  that  two  thirds  of  the  native 
negroes  are  slaves,  under  the  most  cruel  and  inhuman  yoke  of  their 
savage  and  heathen  masters. 

It  is  supposed  by  some,  however,  that  the  Canaanites  could  not  be 
negroes,  1,  because  they  were  not  black,  and  2 :  because  they  were 
builders  of  great  cities,  and  active  promoters  of  commerce — very  dif 
ferent,  in  these  respects,  from  the  Africans  of  the  present  day. 

To  this,  I  think  it  easy  to  make  a  satisfactory  reply.  With  respect 
to  color,  we  all  suppose  that  Noah  and  his  sons  were  white  men.  But 
the  posterity  of  Ham  comprises  a  variety  of  shades,  some  of  them 
being  as  black  as  ebony.  Now  the  general  opinion  of  physiologists 
is,  that  the  color  depends  on  the  climate,  the  food,  and  the  habits ;  but 
no  one  has  ever  discovered  how  many  generations  must  pass  before 
these  will  change  the  white  man  into  a  negro.  Nor  would  it  be  pos 
sible  to  determine  whether  these  causes  are  sufficient  to  account  for 
the  present  differences,  not  only  in  color,  but  in  the  form,  the  counte 
nance,  and  the  very  anatomy  of  the  frame,  amongst  the  races  of  the 
human  family.  For  aught  we  know,  it  may  require  the  special  act 
of  God,  to  adapt  each  race  to  its  peculiar  location  and  circumstances. 
And  assuredly,  when  we  see  that  the  hand  of  Providence  has  estab 
lished  this  adaptation  in  the  insects,  the  birds,  the  animals,  and  the 
very  trees  and  flowers  of  each  climate  on  our  globe,  we  can  not  with 
any  reason  deny  that  the  same  beneficent  power  has  been  as  consid 
erate  and  kind  to  the  human  family. 

But  at  what  time,  and  in  what  measure,  the  change  of  color  was 
accomplished,  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain.  Three  thousand  eight 
hundred  years  have  elapsed  since  the  time  of  Abraham,  and  more 
than  two  thousand  since  the  fall  of  Carthage.  What  color  then 
marked  the  Canaanites  no  man  can  tell.  How  far  the  more  temper 
ate  climate  of  Palestine,  Tyre,  Sidon,  and  Carthage,  assisted  by  inter 
marriages  with  a  fairer  race,  may  have  made  a  difference  between  that 
portion  of  them  which  had  emigrated  from  Africa,  and  the  bulk  of 
the  Canaanites  who  remained  there,  is  a  mere  matter  of  conjecture. 
But  certain  it  is  that  we  can  not  assign  any  reason  why  the  posterity 
of  Canaan  in  Africa  should  be  lighter  in  their  hue,  than  the  pos 
terity  of  Gush.  Certain  it  is,  that  Canaan  was  the  son  of  Ham,  and 
that  the  negroes  are  Hani's  posterity.  And  if,  as  I  have  shown,  the 
great  body  of  the  Canaanites  must  have  lived  and  multiplied  in  Afri 
ca,  they  could  not  have  been  exempted  from  the  general  result  which 


184  OBJECTION'S. 

Providence  has  produced  in  the  form  and  the  complexion  of  their 
brethren,  whether  that  result  was  brought  about  in  the  course  of  ten 
or  twenty  centuries. 

With  respect  to  the  second  objection,  viz.,  that  the  Canaanites  were 
builders  of  great  cities  and  active  promoters  of  commerce,  so  that, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  name  of  Canaanite  became  synonymous  with  the 
business  of  a  merchant,  there  is  no  difficulty  whatever.  For  I  have 
never  denied  that  the  negro  race  is  capable  of  attaining  a  high  degree 
of  skill  in  any  of  the  ordinary  departments  of  human  knowledge, 
under  proper  circumstances.  They  diifer,  of  course,  as  all  men  differ, 
in  their  mental  capacity  and  energy.  We  know  that,  as  a  general 
rule,  those  persons  who  emigrate  from  their  native  country,  in  order 
to  plant  new  settlements  abroad,  are  the  most  enterprising,  bold,  and 
adventurous  spirits  in  the  community.  The  change  of  condition  in 
which  they  place  themselves  calls  forth  the  exertion  of  all  their  fac 
ulties,  and  whatever  amount  of  intellect  they  possess  becomes  de 
veloped  in  the  most  available  form,  by  the  constant  stimulus  of  ne 
cessity.  Hence  we  may  readily  account  for  the  difference  between 
that  portion  of  the  Canaanites  which  left  Africa  for  Palestine,  and 
the  great  body  of  those  who  remained  in  their  native  land  ;  where, 
as  Malte  Brun  informs  us,  twenty  days  in  the  year  suffices  for  the 
labor  of  their  maintenance,  and  there  is  no  room  for  any  emulation 
in  the  arts  of  civilized  life,  because  they  have  no  standard  of  com 
parison.  The  contrast,  indeed,  may  be  easily  imagined,  when  we  re 
gard  the  inhabitants  of  Liberia,  advancing  rapidly  in  commerce,  in 
architecture,  and  even  in  literature ;  and  then  turn  our  eyes  upon  the 
millions  of  negroes  still  living  in  the  Southern  States.  It  is  the  same 
race,  but  under  totally  different  circumstances.  And  therefore  it  is 
that  I  have  always  been  the  advocate  of  a  gradual  abolition  of  slav 
ery,  connected  with  the  transmission  of  the  freedmen  to  African  soil, 
where  the  stimulus  of  their  new  location  would  develop  their  powers 
to  the  best  advantage.  While,  on  the  contrary,  I  have  opposed  their 
immediate  emancipation  in  the  South,  remaining  there,  under  the 
overshadowing  superiority  of  the  white  race;  not  only  because  such  a 
state  of  society  would  be  intolerable  to  their  former  masters,  but  also 
because  it  would  be  fatal  to  the  advancement  and  final  elevation  of 
the  negroes  themselves. 

Thus,  then,  I  have  shown,  and,  as  it  se'erns  to  me,  satisfactorily, 
how  the  prophecy  of  Noah  has  been  truly  fulfilled,  and  is  still  in  the 


PROPHECY  FULFILLED.  185 

progress  of  fulfillment,  upon  the  posterity  of  Canaan,  the  negro  race, 
according  to  the  letter  of  Scripture.  From  that  sentence  there  is  no 
escape,  until  the  time  shall  come,  which  I  doubt  not  is  appointed  in 
the  order  of  Providence.  Like  the  sentence  pronounced  upon  the 
race  of  Israel,  the  prophecy  of  Noah  will  have  its  allotted  course,  and 
no  wisdom  or  power  of  man  can  defeat  it.  But  the  period  is  ap 
proaching  when  the  designs  of  the  Almighty  will  be  accomplished. 
The  Jews  will  again  occupy  their  own  land,  and  Mount  Zion  will  be 
"a  praise  throughout  the  world,"  and  "all  nations  shall  flow  unto 
Jerusalem."  The  race  of  Canaan  also  shall  be  relieved  from  the 
curse,  "Ethiopia  shall  lift  up  her  hands  unto  God,"  and  "the  knowl 
edge  of  the  Lord  shall  cover  the  earth,  as  the  waters  do  the  sea." 
How  long  a  period  may  elapse  before  this  glorious  consummation,  is 
only  known  to  Him  who  seeth  the  end  from  the  beginning.  It  may, 
for  aught  that  we  can  tell,  be  at  the  close  of  the  present  dispensation, 
which  so  many  suppose  to  be  nigh  at  hand.  It  may  be  deferred  for 
several  centuries.  But  it  will  come,  for  "  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath 
spoken  it." 

And  until  it  comes,  it  is  our  duty  to  submit  with  patient  faith  to 
our  allotted  condition.  Not  rebelliously  warring  against  the  will  of 
the  Most  High,  nor  vainly  opposing  ourselves  to  the  arrangements  of 
His  providence,  nor  accusing  our  brethren  in  Christ  as  sinners  be 
cause  they  keep  in  slavery  the  race  which  God  saw  fit  to  doom  to 
servitude  ;  but  doing  our  best,  in  conjunction  with  the  precepts  of 
the  apostles,  the  rules  and  practice  of  the  Church,  and  the  Constitu 
tion  of  our  country,  to  a/neliorate  the  condition  of  the  slave  by  the 
kind  and  gracious  influence  of  the  Gospel. 

Believing  as  I  do,  that  a  thorough  examination  of  the  subject  will 
lead  to  the  result  to  which  I  have  arrived,  namely,  that  the  posterity 
of  Canaan  are  existing  at  this  day  in  the  African  race,  and  compose 
the  greater  part  of  it,  I  am  nevertheless  quite  aware  that  many  of  my 
readers,  as  well  as  yourself,  may  think  the  conclusion  untenable  from 
the  fact  that  we  hear  no  more  of  the  Canaanites  after  the  conquest  of 
Palestine  by  ancient  Israel.  But  this,  on  reflection,  will  be  seen  to 
amount  to  nothing.  Nations,  as  such,  are  liable  to  many  changes. 
They  rise,  decline,  and  disappear  from  the  page  of  history.  And  yet 
the  races  of  men  remain  and  form  other  combinations,  and  are  known 
by  new  names,  though  the  people  are  substantially  the  descendants 
of  the  same  ancestry. 


186  CHANGES  IN  NATIONS. 

Thus,  amongst  the  multitude  of  nations  mentioned  in  the  Penta 
teuch,  nearly  all  have  passed  away,  yet  there  is  not  one  whose  popu 
lation  can  be  said  to  be  extinct.  We  can  trace  the  Jews,  because  their 
religion  forbade  them  to  commingle  with  any  other  people.  We  can 
trace  the  Edomites,  because  their  peculiarities  are  found  among  the 
unconqucred  tribes  of  the  Arabs  to  this  day.  We  can  trace  the 
Egyptians,  because  their  kingdom,  however  debased,  has  continued 
to  exist.  But  the  rest,  though  we  can  not  trace  them,  and  therefore 
we  talk  as  if  they  were  annihilated,  have  in  reality  continued  to  exist 
as  individuals  and  families;  and  still  form,  by  constant  propagation, 
their  proportion  of  the  world's  inhabitants.  The  same  remark  may  be 
applied  to  all  other  cases.  If  we  take,  for  example,  the  Commentaries 
of  Caesar,  we  find  a  large  number  of  nations  specified  as  the  com 
munities  in  ancient  Gaul,  hardly  any  of  which  were  known  by  the 
same  names  five  centuries  later.  Yet  no  reasonable  man  can  doubt 
that  these  were  the  ancestors  of  the  Germans  and  the  French,  the 
Swiss  and  the  Belgians,  of  our  own  period.  The  various  races  may 
intermingle,  their  old  nationalities  may  undergo  many  mutations ; 
language,  manners,  and  customs  may  change;  but  all  this  does  not  im 
ply  the  extinction  of  the  people.  So  far,  therefore,  as  we  have  evi 
dence  to  guide  us,  we  have  full  authority  for  saying  that  no  race 
which  existed  since  the  time  of  Noah  has  ceased  to  exist  in  their  pos 
terity  ;  although  their  former  landmarks  have  been  all  obliterated,  and 
their  old  appellations  have  long  passed  away. 

This  being  true  universally,  there  can  be  no  question  about  its 
being  more  especially  true  in  the  continuance  of  the  race  of  Ham, 
through  the  line  of  Canaan,  since  it  is  the  only  race  which  it  has 
pleased  God  to  mark  by  such  strong  characteristics.  Their  doom  of 
servitude  in  its  lowest  form,  their  location  in  Africa,  in  the  climate 
of  which  the  races  of  Shem  and  Japheth  can  not  long  exist,  their 
wonderful  adaptation  to  that  climate,  their  still  more  wonderful 
adaptation  to  the  state  of  slavery,  for  which  the  mercy  of  Provi 
dence  seems  to  have  qualified  them  beyond  any  other  race  of  people 
in  the  known  world,  and,  lastly,  their  peculiar  color,  which  distin 
guishes  them  so  manifestly  from  the  rest  of  the  human  family — all 
these  must  serve  to  identify  them  beyond  the  possibility  of  mistake. 
And  as  it  is  an  established  rule  among  theologians  that  nothing  proves 
the  true  sense  of  propliecy  so  conclusively  as  its  fulfillment,  I  may 
claim  the  application  of  the  maxim  to  these  indisputable  facts — that 


CHANGES  IN  NATIONS.  187 

up  to  this  period  of  modern  history  no  race  but  theirs  has  been  sub 
ject  to  slavery,  and  perfectly  contented  under  it,  for  thousands  of 
years.  No  race  but  theirs  has  been  so  stationary  and  so  degraded  in 
their  own  land.  And  no  race  but  theirs  has  shown  such  a  disposition 
to  look  up  to  the  posterity  of  Shem  and  Japheth  with  admiring  love, 
and  cling  to  them  with  such  constancy  and  affection. 


188  VARIETY  OF  COLOR. 


CHAPTER   XXII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Resuming  my  extracts  from  the  com 
mentary  of  D'Oyly  and  Mant,  I  shall  commence  this  chapter  with 
some  instructive  remarks  on  the  color  of  the  human  species.  (Gen. 
10  :  32.) 

"  Man,  though  white  in  Europe,  black  in  Africa,  yellow  in  Asia, 
and  red  in  America,"  saith  the  celebrated  naturalist  Buffon,  "is  still 
the  same  animal,  tinged  only  with  the  color  of  the  climate.  Where 
the  heat  is  excessive,  as  in  Guinea  and  Senegal,  the  people  are  per 
fectly  black ;  where  less  excessive,  as  in  Abyssinia,  the  people  are 
less  black  ;  where  it  is  more  temperate,  as  in  Barbary  and  in  Arabia, 
they  are  brown  ;  and  where  mild,  as  in  Europe  and  in  Lesser  Asia, 
they  are  fair." 

"  Shaw,  in  his  travels  through  Barbary,  found  a  tribe  in  the  mount 
ains  of  Auress,  south  of  Algiers,  who  appeared  to  be  of  a  different 
race  from  the  Moors  ;  far  from  swarthy,  their  complexion  is  fair  and 
ruddy,  and  their  hair  a  deep  yellow,  instead  of  being  dark,  as  among 
the  neighboring  Moors.  He  conjectures  that  they  are  a  remnant  of 
the  Vandals.  And  they  probably  retained  their  complexion  from 
their  high  mountainous  situation  ;  as  the  natives  of  Armenia,  in 
Western  Asia,  and  Cashmere,  in  Eastern,  are  fair,  owing  to  the  great 
elevation  of  the  soil  in  both  places,  and  the  temperature  of  the  climate 
occasioned  thereby." 

"  On  the  other  hand,  a  colony  of  Jews  settled  at  Cochin,  on  the 
Malabar  coast,  from  a  very  remote  period,  of  which  they  have  lost 
the  memory,  though  originally  a  fair  people  in  Palestine,  and  from 
their  customs  preserving  themselves  unmixed,  are  grown  as  black  as 
the  other  Malabarians,  who  are  hardly  a  shade  lighter  than  the  negroes 
of  Guinea.  And  at  Ceylon,  the  Portuguese,  who  settled  there  only 
a  few  centuries  ago,  are  degenerated  and  grown  blacker  than  the  orig 
inal  natives.  They  are  in  number  about  five  thousand,  still  speak 
Portuguese,  wear  the  European  dress,  and  profess  the  Romish  re 
ligion." 


D'OYLY  AND  MANT.  189 

44  Still  there  are  anomalies  or  exceptions  to  the  general  conclusions 
of  the  influence  of  climate  and  customs,  that  must  be  ascribed  to 
other,  and  perhaps,  undiscovered  causes,  which  baffle  the  pride  of 
human  sagacity  to  develop,  and  which,  after  all,  must  be  resolved  into 
the  will  and  pleasure  of  the  Creator,  and  deposited  among  the  *  un 
searchable  riches '  of  His  wisdom  and  providence  in  the  variety,  no 
less  than  in  the  regularity  of  His  works." 

On  Exod.  21,  And  he  that  stealeth  a  man  and  selleth  him,  etc.,  the 
commentator  saith  :  "As  liberty  is  equally  valuable  with  life,  the 
Jewish  law,  with  the  strictest  equity,  ordained  that  if  any  man  were 
convicted  of  attempting  to  reduce  any  fellow-citizen  to  slavery,  he 
should  be  punished  with  death." 

Here  I  would  remark  that  the  learned  Dr.  Graves,  from  whom  this 
comment  is  taken,  agrees  with  almost  all  the  other  commentators  in 
restricting  the  law  of  Moses  to  the  case  of  stealing  a  fellow-citizen, 
i.  e.  an  Israelite.  But  he  differs  from  the  whole  stream  of  human 
history,  and,  as  I  think,  from  common-sense,  in  the  reason  which  he 
assigns  for  it,  namely,  that  "liberty  is  equally  valuable  with  life." 
This  proposition  seems  to  me  quite  untenable.  Slavery,  as  we  have 
seen,  came  in  with  war ;  and  it  was  universally  held  that  it  was  a 
favor  to  the  captive  taken  in  battle  that  he  should  have  his  life  spared, 
on  condition  of  his  becoming  the  slave  of  his  conqueror.  Hence  the 
very  name  of  servus,  from  servatus,  viz.  one  saved  from  death,  be 
came  the  title  of  the  slave,  according  to  the  Roman  law  and  the  judg 
ment  of  the  fathers.  And  no  reasonable  mind  could  hesitate  as  to 
the  choice  which  the  vast  majority  of  men  would  make,  if  death  or 
slavery  were  proffered  to  them. 

On  Lev.  25  : 13,  Ye  shall  return  every  man  to  his  possessions,  etc., 
we  have  the  following  comments,  in  D'0}rly  and  Mant,  viz.  : 

"By  appointing  that,  on  the  year  of  jubilee,  the  owner  of  estates 
which  had  been  sold  should  return  to  his  possession,  and  that  every 
Israelitish  slave  should  be  at  perfect  liberty  to  return  to  his  family, 
God  wisely  provided  for  the  suppression  of  luxury,  cruelty,  and 
ambition ;  for  the  preservation  of  a  perfect  distinction  of  tribes,  fam 
ilies,  and  genealogies  ;  and  chiefly  for  ascertaining  the  descent  of  the 
future  Messiah,  whose  more  eminent  deliverance,  wrought  for  all 
mankind,  was  shadowed  out  by  the  privileges  bestowed  upon  the 
Israelites,  in  the  year  of  jubilee."  And  on  v.  39,  If  thy  brother 
that  dwelleth  by  thee  be  waxen  poor,  and  be  sold  unto  thee,  thou  shalt 


190  D'OYLY  AND  MANT. 

not  compel  him  to  serve  as  a  bond-servant,  we  read  this  comment 
from  Bishop  Patrick :  "  That  is,"  saith  he,  "  as  a  slave  bought  from 
other  nations,  over  whom  the  dominion  of  the  Israelites  was  as 
complete  as  over  their  cattle" 

On  Deut.  23 :  15,  "  Thou  shalt  not  deliver  unto  his  master  the 
slave  that  is  escaped  unto  thee,  we  have  the  following  :  "  That  is,  the 
servant  not  of  a  Hebrew,  but  of  an, alien  and  stranger." — Bishop 
Kidder.  And  again:  "  A  heathen  soldier  or  servant  who  deserted 
and  came  over  to  the  Israelites,  with  intent  of  turning  proselyte  to 
the  true  religion." — Pyle. 

Thus  far  we  find  a  reasonable  degree  of  harmony  between  the 
commentary  of  D'Oyly  and  Mant,  indorsed  by  Bishop  Hobart,  and 
the  great  body  of  Biblical  critics  which  had  gone  before,  so  far  as 
the  Old  Testament  is  concerned.  And  when  we  turn  to  the  same 
commentary  on  the  New  Testament,  we  shall  have  no  reason  to 
complain  of  any  substantial  variation. 

Beginning  with  our  Saviour's  strong  declaration  in  His  sermon  on 
the  Mount,  Matt.  5  :  IT,  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the 
law  and  the  prophets,"  etc.,  we  have  the  following  comment  from  the 
learned  Dr.  S.  Clarke  :  "Do  not  think  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  or 
abrogate  the  law  and  the  prophets :  no,  I  am  not  come  to  dissolve 
any  one  natural  or  moral  obligation ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  to  fulfill 
what  was  typified,  to  explain  what  was  obscure,  and  to  complete 
what  was  imperfect." 

And  again,  from  Archbishop  Tillotson  :  "  I  an>  not  come  to  de 
stroy  but  to  fulfill,  to  carry  on  the  same  design  which  was  intended 
by  the  Jewish  religion,  and  to  perfect  and  accomplish  it." 

On  1  Cor.  7 :  22,  He  that  is  called  in  the  Lord,  being  a  servant, 
etc.,  we  have  this  comment,  viz.  :  "  Though  he  be  a  slave  to  man, 
yet,  as  a  Christian,  he  is  Christ's  freeman,  in  the  most  honorable 
sense  of  true  freedom  ;  and  the  Christian  who  is  no  man's  slave  is 
yet  a  servant,  and  owes  an  absolute  obedience  to  Christ,  our  common 
Lord  and  Master." — Pyle. 

The  important  text  in  1  Tim.  6 : 1,  Let  as  many  servants  as  are. 
under  the  yoke,  has  these  comments,  viz. :  "Under  the  yoke  signifies," 
saith  Dr.  Whitby,  "  the  yoke  of  bondage  to  the  heathens."  And 
Burkitt  is  quoted  in  the  following  words  :  "  The  Apostle  here  par 
ticularly  directs  Timothy  to  instruct  Christian  servants  in  the  per 
formance  of  the  duty  of  obedience  to  their  masters,  whether  infidels 


BISHOP  DAVENANT.  191 

or  Christians.  Hence  it  appears  that  the  Christian  religion  allows 
of  an  inequality  amongst  men,  and  as  it  gives  to  superiors  the 
power  of  commanding,  so  it  lays  inferiors  under  an  obligation  to 
obey." 

And  on  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  Bishop  Tomline  is  cited  for  the 
following  :  "  The  Epistle  to  Philemon  is  a  plain  proof  that  Christian 
ity  was  not  intended  to  make  qpiy  alteration  in  the  civil  conditions 
of  men.  St.  Paul  considered  Onesimus,  although  converted  to  the 
Gospel,  as  still  belonging  to  his  former  master,  and  by  deprecating 
the  anger  of  Philemon,  he  acknowledged  that  Onesimus  continued 
liable  to  punishment  for  the  misconduct  of  which  he  had  been  guilty, 
previous  to  his  conversion." 

The  name  of  Bishop  Davenant  stands  high  among  the  worthies  of 
our  mother  Church  of  England,  and  I  shall  occupy  the  remainder  of 
this  chapter  with  some  valuable  passages  from  his  exposition  of  St. 
Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  translated  by  the  Rev.  Josiah  All- 
port,  who  has  added  many  valuable  notes,  and  thus  adorned  a  work 
of  great  merit  and  usefulness.  The  following  passages  embrace  all 
that  belongs  to  our  subject : 

Col.  3  :  22 :  Servants,  obey  in  all  things  your  masters  according  to 
the  flesh,  etc.  "The  occasion  of  this  precept,"  saith  Bishop  Daven 
ant,  "  seems  to  spring  from  the  circumstance,  that  servants  converted 
to  Christianity  thought  themselves  to  be  exempt  from  the  yoke  of 
servitude.  Which  opinion,  full  of  error,  the  devil  without  doiibt 
instilled  into  the  minds  of  men,  that  thence  he  might  render  the 
Christian  religion  odious  among  the  heathen,  as  a  disturber  of  order. 
This  error  perhaps  had  some  color.  If  masters  embraced  the  Christ 
ian  religion  together  with  their  servants,  it  was  unjust  that  they 
should  still  hold  them  as  slaves  whom  they  were  bound  to  account 
as  brethren.  If  masters  still  adhere'd  to  paganism,  when  their  serv 
ants  were  converted,  it  seemed  much  more  unjust  that  he  who  had 
been  delivered  and  redeemed  from  the  power  of  the  devil  should 
nevertheless  remain  in  bondage  to  a  pagan  man  who  himself  remain 
ed  a  slave  to  the  devil.  These  things  seemed  to  have  an  air  of 
probability ;  but,  notwithstanding,  the  Apostle  gives  a  contrary 
precept,  in  which  every  word  hath  its  weight,  to  demonstrate  the 
equity  and  even  the  necessity  of  the  precept." 

"  Servants.  He  addresses  Christians,  and  yet  he  still  calls  them 
servants,  6ov7.oi.  This  word  does  not  denote  such  domestics  as  we 


192  BISHOP  DAVENANT. 

now  employ,  who  are  in  reality  free  and  free-born,  although  they 
serve  others  for  hire ;  but  it  denotes  such  as  the  ancients  used,  who 
were  either  taken  in  war,  or  bought,  and  on  that  account  were  wholly 
in  the  power  of  their  masters." 

"Concerning  the  foundation  of  this  servitude,  whether  it  be  just 
or  violent,  I  shall  not  contend,  yet  it  appears  to  have  been  allowed 
and  established  by  the  law  of  nations.  Hence  Aristotle  asserts 
(Polit.  1,  3)  that  servants  of  this  kind  were  nothing  else  than  certain 
animated  instruments  of  their  masters.  And  even  amongst  the  sa 
cred  writers,  these  servants  are  reckoned  among  the  goods  and  pos 
sessions  of  their  masters,  (Job  1  :  3,)  and  the  servant  is  called,  in 
Exod.  21 :  21,  the  money  of  his  master.  The  Apostle,  therefore, 
shows,  by  this  very  name,  that  they  were  bound  to  obedience,  and 
on  that  account  he  adds  his  command,  Servants,  obey  in  all  things. 

"  But  that  is  to  be  restricted  to  things  lawful  and  honest.  ,  Right 
ly,  therefore,  has  Jerome  put  in  this  exception.  In  all  things, 
namely,  saith  he,  in  which  the  lord  of  the  flesh  doth  not  command 
contrary  to  the  Lord  of  the  spirit." 

"  The  Christian  religion,"  continues  Bishop  Davenant,  "  does  not 
subvert  political  order  ;  nay,  it  doth  not  deprive  heathen  masters  of 
their  legitimate  authority  over  Christian  servants.  Therefore  the 
Anabaptists  err,  who  think  all  authority  to  be  opposed  to  evangelical 
liberty,  even  of  Christians  over  Christians." 

"  But  the  Christian  religion  frees  from  the  yoke  of  human  servitude 
that  which  is  the  best  and  most  excellent  thing  in  man,  namely,  the 
spirit  and  conscience.  (See  Gal.  5  :  1.)  They  therefore  err  who  would 
rule  the  minds  and  consciences  of  men  by  virtue  of  any  superiority 
and  human  lordship,  for  they  are  masters  according  to  the  flesh,  not 
according  to  the  spirit.'1'1 

"  Christians  may  and  ought  to  submit  themselves  according  to  the 
flesh,  (i.e.,  in  things  external,  doubtful,  and  temporal,)  even  to  the 
unjust  commands  of  those  who  are  masters  according  to  the  flesh. 
Thus  Augustine,  (in  Expos.  Epist.  ad  Rom.  propos.  74 :)  We  must 
not  resist  masters,  although  they  unjustly  take  from  us  temporal 
things.  And  St.  Peter,  1  Epist.  11 :  18  :  Be  subject  to  your  masters, 
not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle,  hut  also  to  thefroward." 

Terse  23  :  And  whatsoever  ye  do,  do  it  heartily,  as  to  the  Lord, 
and  not  unto  men.  "That  is,"  saith  Bishop  Davenant,  "to  the 
Lord  Christ,  more  than  to  men,  because  for  the  sake  of  Christ  you 
serve  them.'1 


BISHOP  DAVENANT.  193 

"  But  why,"  continues  he,  "  in  these  lower  and  external  observ 
ances,  are  they  said  to  obey  the  Lord  more  than  men,  whose  com 
mands  they  serve,  and  whom  alone  they  profit  ?" 

"  First,  because  they  who  obey  are  more  the  servants  of  Christ 
than  of  earthly  masters.  For  earthly  masters  buy  their  servants 
with  silver  and  gold :  Christ  buys  them  with  his  precious  blood  ;  they 
redeem  the  body  alone,  and  that  for  another  service  :  Christ  redeems 
both  soul  and  body  for  perpetual  liberty.  They  must  therefore 
especially  serve  Christ." 

"  Secondly,  because  they  obey  earthly  masters  only  at  the  appoint 
ment  of  Christ ;  therefore  they  rather  obey  Christ  than  them  ;  not 
unlike  as  inferior  servants  who  obey  a  steward,  yet  are  said  more  to 
obey  their  master,  at  whose  will  they  yield  to  his  steward ;  he  is 
opposed  if  he  shall  order  the  contrary  to  his  master." 

"  Thirdly,  because  Christ  himself  hath  declared  that  he  wishes 
his  servants  to  obey  their  masters,  and  this  he  strictly  commands  in 
his  word ;  and  he  himself  also,  in  his  wise  governance  and  by  his 
authority,  hath  ordained  some  to  service  and  others  to  dominion, 
Whilst  faithful  servants  have  respect  to  all  these  things,  they  are 
rightly  said  to  serve  the  Lord  and  not  men" 

Ch.  4:1:  Masters,  give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is  just  and 
equal.  "  That  which  is  just,"  continues  Bishop  Davenant,  "  in  this 
place,  includes  whatever  is  due  to  servants  from  legal  obligation,  or 
according  to  positive  laws,  and  excludes  whatever  is  contrary  to  the 
same.  Aristotle  (CEcon.  1  :  5)  lays  down  three  things  as  necessary 
and  due  to  servants,  their  work,  their  sustenance,  their  correction. 
We  shall  add  also  a  fourth,  viz.,  their  wages,  which  is  due  to  our  serv 
ants,  because  they  are  not  slaves,  as  they  were  formerly  among  the 
ancients.  It  pertains,  therefore,  to  the  justice  of  masters  to  render 
all  these  things  to  their  servants  according  to  due  measure  ;  it  is  the 
part  of  injustice,  or  at  least  of  folly,  if  they  deal  otherwise  with 
them.  For  instance,  in  enjoining  work  upon  a  servant,  he  observes 
justice  who  neither  imposes  immoderate  labor,  nor  suffers  him  to 
grow  stupid  in  ease  and  idleness.  So  in  allowing  them  sustenance, 
he  who  neither  withholds  necessary  or  convenient  food,  nor  suffers 
them  to  indulge  gluttony  or  drunkenness.  In  applying  correction, 
he  who  does  not  inflict  punishment  upon  them  with  a  cruelty  exceed 
ing  the  extent  of  the  fault,  nor  yet  allows  them  to  commit  any  crime 
with  impunity.  In  rewarding  them,  he  who  is  neither  so  sparing 


194  BISHOP   DAVENANT. 

that  they  can  not  thereby  procure  for  themselves  necessaries,  nor  so 
lavish  as  to  yield  them  matter  for  dissoluteness." 

That  which  is  equal.  "  In  the  Greek  it  is  equality  or  equability, 
which  word  we  must  not  take  in  that  sense,  as  if  it  were  incumbent 
upon  masters  to  give  to  their  servants  the  same  honors,  the  same 
obedience,  which  they  exact  from  them,  for  well  spoke  Plato :  To 
give  equal  things  to  unequals  is  inequality." 

"  This  word  equal,  therefore,  does  not  designate  the  labors  them 
selves,  or  the  duties  of  servants  and  masters,  which  are  different  and 
plainly  the  reverse :  but  it  refers  to  the  mind  and  manner  of  acting, 
which  in  each  ought  to  be  equal  by  a  certain  proportionate  analogy. 
For  instance,  servants  are  commanded  to  obey  their  masters  in  single 
ness  of  heart  and  the  fear  of  God :  now  masters  give  them  that 
which  is  equal  when  they  rule  them  piously  and  religiously.  Serv 
ants  are  commanded  to  obey  their  masters  from  the  heart  and  with 
good  will :  masters  repay  them  for  their  services  when  they  rule 
their  servants  with  mildness  and  a  sort  of  parental  affection.  There 
fore,  that  we  may  bring  the  difference  of  these  words  just  and  equal 
in  this  place,  under  a  brief  view :  that  is  called  just  which  the  law 
requires,  or  what  is  due  to  servants  from  legal  obligation.  That  is 
called  equal  which  chanty  and  Christian  lenity  requires,  or  what  is 
due  to  them  from  moral  obligation." 

The  translator  in  a  note  saith  :  "  The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that 
the  word  servants  is  used  here  for  slaves,  dovhoi,  in  conformity  with 
the  authorized  version  of  the  Bible,"  p.  205.  But  in  the  Latin  of 
Bishop  Davenant  the  word  sermis  should  be  rendered  slave  or  bond 
man  throughout,  because  this  is  its  only  proper  signification.  Never 
theless,  as  it  stands,  the  meaning  of  the  writer  is  perfectly  clear,  and 
I  have  cited  the  commentary  at  great  length  because  it  is  well  worth 
your  attention  ;  for  you  are  aware,  of  course,  that  the  author  was 
one  of  King  James's  envoys  to  the  famous  Synod  of  Dort,  and  a  spe 
cial  favorite  with  that  important  branch  of  the  clergy  which  are 
called  Evangelical  by  the  non-conformists  of  England,  and  their  suc 
cessors  in  our  own  land. 


DR.   JORTIN.  195 


CHAPTER   XXIII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  As  I  have  every  desire  to  deal  frankly 
and  fully  with  the  question  in  controversy,  I  shall  devote  this  chap 
ter  to  a  quotation  from  Dr.  Jortin,  which  I  find  in  the  commentary 
of  D'Oyly  and  Mant,  republished  by  Bishop  Hobart,  because  it 
looks  favorably,  like  certain  passages  from  Scott  and  Clarke,  on 
the  abolition  side  of  the  argument. 

1  Peter  2  :  18.  Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters  with  all  fear, 
etc.  "  In  the  time  when  the  Gospel  was  first  preached,"  saith  Dr. 
Jortin,  "  servants  for  the  most  part  were  slaves,  and,  as  many  of 
them  were  converted  to  Christianity  with  or  without  their  masters, 
it  was  to  be  feared  lest  they  should  take  too  much  upon  them,  and 
think  too  well  of  themselves,  by  entering  into  a  religion  which  com 
manded  all  men  to  treat  one  another  as  brethren.  This  might  have 
brought  a  discredit  on  the  Gospel,  and  ha've  been  a  hindrance  to  its 
progress.  Therefore  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  earnestly  exhort  servants 
or  slaves  to  obey  their  masters,  and  to  be  industrious  and  honest, 
and  dutifully. to  serve,  not  only  the  just  and  gentle,  but  the  harsh 
and  froward.  The  law  of  nature  knows  no  such  thing  as  slavery,  for 
by  nature  all  men  are  free  and  equal ;  but  by  the  civil  laws,  and  by 
the  practice  of  nations,  it  was  established  and  it  still  continues 
amongst  those  who  know  not  the  Gospel ;  and  the  more  is  the  shame 
and  the  pity,  it  is  to  be  found  in  some  places  where  Christianity  is 
professed.  The  religion  of  Christ,  when  it  first  made  its  progress  in 
the  world,  left  the  civil  laws  of  nations  in  a  great  measure  as  it  found 
them,  lest,  by  altering  or  repealing  them,  it  should  bring  confusion 
and  disturbance  into  human  society  ;.  but  as  by  its  own  genius  and 
tendency  it  leads  men  gently  back  to  the  precepts  of  nature  and 
equity,  to  kindness  and  to  mercy,  it  put  an  end,  by  degrees,  in  most 
civilized  places,  to  that  excessive  distance  and  difference  between 
masters  and  slaves,  which  owed  its  origin  to  outrage  and  war,  to  vio 
lence  and  calamity ;  so  that  in  Christian  countries  the  service  which 


196  DR.   JORTIN. 

is  performed  is  usually,  as  it  ought  to  be,  voluntary  and  by  agree 
ment.  But  what  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  said  con 
cerning  slaves  holds  true  concerning  hired  servants,  and  all  those 
who  are  employed  in  other  denominations  under  a  master ;  that  they 
discharge  their  office  modestly,  diligently,  and  willingly,  and  act  with 
faithfulness  and  integrity  in  everything  that  is  committed  to  them." 

Now  here,  along  with  much  that  is  true,  this  learned  and  excellent 
divine  has  set  forth  some  very  common  but  not  the  less  mischievous 
errors,  and  these  I  shall  proceed  to  consider. 

"  The  law  of  nature  knows  no  such  thing  as  slavery,  for  Ijy  nature 
all  men  are  free  and  equal"  So  declared  Dr.  Jortin  some  time  pre 
vious  to  our  celebrated  Declaration  of  Independence,  because  he  died 
in  1770,  six  years  anterior  to  our  Revolutionary  War.  But  in  the 
first  place  I  would  ask,  what  did  he  mean  by  the  law  of  nature  ? 
Was  it  the  law  of  our  creation,  in  Paradise,  before  the  fall,  when 
there  was  but  one  man  and  one  woman  in  existence  ?  This  would  be 
preposterous,  and  therefore  can  not  be  pretended  for  a  moment.  It 
must  then  have  been  the  law  of  nature  after  the  fall,  when  sin  had 
corrupted  it.  And  where,  in  the  history  of  that  fallen  nature,  can 
we  find  that  all  men  are  free  and  equal?  The  earliest  account  of  it 
is  in  the  third  and  fourth  chapters  of  Genesis,  where  the  Almighty 
pronounced  this  sentence  on  Eve  :  "  Thy  desire  shall  be  to  thy  hus 
band,  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee."  (Gen.  3  : 16.)  The  same  principle 
meets  us  again  in  the  case  of  Cain  and  Abel,  for,  speaking  of  the  rela 
tion  between  the  elder  and  the  younger  brother,  the  Lord  said  unto 
Cain  :  "  Unto  thee  shall  be  his  desire,  and  thou  shalt  rule  over  him.^ 
(Gen.  4  :  7.)  Already,  in  this  first  generation  of  mankind,  we  see 
dominion  and  subjection,  but  where  are  the  freedom  and  equality  f 

If,  from  this  beginning,  we  go  on  in  the  sacred  history,  what  do  we 
find  ?  Little  else  but  contest,  strife,  and  the  struggle  for  dominion. 
The  earth  becomes  filled  with  violence  and  iniquity,  and  the  deluge 
sweeps  away  the  flagitious  race,  leaving  only  the  patriarch  Noah  and 
his  family.  And  in  the  prophecy  of  Noah  we  have  a  proclamation 
of  the  Divine  purpose,  which  is  totally  unlike  this  favorite  hypothesis 
of  ultra-abolitionism.  "  Cursed  be  Canaan,  a  servant  of  servants 
shall  he  be  unto  his  brethren.  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Shem, 
and  Canaan  shall  be  his  servant.  God  shall  enlarge  Japheth  and  he 
shall  dwell  in  the  tents  of  Shem,  and  Canaan  shall  be  his  servant." 
Superiority  for  Shem  in  religious  privileges,  dominion  over  Shem  by 


DOMINION  AND  SUBJECTION.  197 

Japheth  in  temporal  power,  and  subjection  of  Canaan  to  both,  are  hero 
indicated.  Where,  again,  are  the  freedom  and  equality  ? 

The  posterity  of  Noah  multiplies,  and  the  earth  is  divided  among 
them.  But  immediately  we  find  the  exhibition  of  dominion  and 
power.  Nimrod,  the  mighty  hunter,  appears  as  the  founder  of  the 
Assyrian  empire ;  the  patriarchal  authority,  which  was  absolute,  rules 
the  tribes  ;  Abraham,  the  favorite  of  God,  becomes  a  petty  prince,  hav 
ing  three  hundred  and  eighteen  servants  born  in  his  own  house ;  and 
bondmen  and  bondmaids  are  reckoned  amongst  the  property  of  his 
children  and  grand- children.  That  slavery  was  generally  prevalent 
appears  further  from  the  fact,  that  the  sons  of  Jacob  resolved  to  get 
rid-»of  their  own  brother  Joseph,  by  selling  him  to  the  Midianites. 
These  Midianites  sold  him  again  to  Potiphar.  And  when,  after  the 
death  of  Jacob,  the  brethren  of  Joseph  feared  that  he  would  use  his 
power  to  be  revenged  of  their  cruel  conduct,  "  they  went  and  fell 
down  before  his  face ;  and  they  said,  Behold,  we  be  thy  servants." 
(Gen.  50  :  18.)  Where  are  the  freedom  and  equality,  even  among  the 
sons  of  Israel  ? 

"We  read  next  that  the  descendants  of  Jacob  multiplied  in  Egypt, 
where  they  were  oppressed  to  the  lowest  point  of  human""  suffering, 
for  their  children  "  were  cast  out  that  they  might  not  live,"  and  the 
Almighty,  in  mercy,  sent  Moses  and  Aaron  to  deliver  them,  and 
make  them  a  prosperous  and  independent  nation  in  the  promised 
land.  And  lo  !  for  the  first  and  only  time  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
the  Lord  condescended  to  provide  a  complete  code  of  laws  for  his 
chosen  people,  comprehending  both  their  religious  and  their  civil  duties. 
But  here,  again,  though  it  was  -confessedly  the  most  perfect  system 
which  mankind  had  ever  known,  yet  the  whole  was  arranged  accord 
ing  to  the  strictest  subordination.  A  chief  ruler  appointed  by  divine 
direction,  an  hereditary  priesthood,  a  prince  over  every  tribe,  rulers 
over  thousands,  and  hundreds,  and  fifties,  and  tens,  slavery  for  six 
years  as  the  result  of  debt  or  poverty,  even  to  the  free-born  Israelite, 
and  slavery  for  life,  descending  to  the  offspring,  for  the  races  of  the 
surrounding  heathen. 

Where,  then,  are  we  to  look  for  this  law  of  nature,  of  which  Dr. 
Jortin  spake,  as  many  others  now  speak,  under  the  delusive  idea 
that  there  is  good  proof  of  its  existence  ?  We  have  seen,  indeed, 
that  the  civil  law  had  recognized  something  very  like  it,  but  this  was 
evidently  in  reference  to  the  supposed  golden  age,  which  poets  and 


198  DOMINION  AND  SUBJECTION. 

philosophers  among  the  ancients  accepted  as  a  fact,  although  it  was 
nothing  more  than  a  fanciful  amplification  of  the  condition  of  man, 
either  in  Paradise,  or  in  the  age  of  the  patriarch  Noah,  whom  they 
converted  into  Saturn.  We  know,  likewise,  that  the  notion  may  be 
found  in  various  writers,  and  that  the  infidel  Rousseau  set  forth  the 
superiority  of  the  state  of  nature  in  eloquent  terms,  before  the 
French  Revolution.  And  we  also  know  that  the  people  proclaimed 
their  platform  of  liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity,  in  pursuance  of  his 
hypothesis ;  and  acted  upon  it,  in  the  midst  of  the  most  bloody  and 
cruel  carnage,  until  the  sword  of  the  first  Napoleon  forced  them  to 
submit  to  the  hand  of  power.  As  to  our  own  assertion  of  it  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  I  have  already  treated  the  matter  suffi 
ciently,  in  the  Bible  View  of  Slavery,  and  do  not  mean  to  repeat  that 
argument  here.  But  it  must  be  obvious  to  all  candid  and  thoughtful 
minds,  that  this  favorite  theory  has  no  foundation  in  the  facts ;  and, 
judging  by  the  existing  constitution  of  all  created  things,  could  never 
have  been  consistent  with  the  purposes  of  the  Almighty. 

The  nearest  approach  on  earth  to  what  men  call  freedom  and  equal 
ity,  consists  in  subjection  to  good  laws.  Hence,  we  have  the  best 
political  condition  made  dependent  on  subjection.  What  compels 
this  subjection  ?  The  Government.  What  is  the  Government  ?  It 
is  the  systematic  organization  of  force.  No  law  is  of  any  efficacy 
among  men,  unless  there  be  a  power  able  to  execute  it.  But  the  im 
portance  of  government  is  seen  in  this,  that  the  force  which  it  exer 
cises  is  regulated  by  the  fixed  principles  of  justice,  and  intended  to 
operate  on  every  class  in  the  community,  so  as  to  protect  their  rights 
and  privileges.  Arid  hence  arises  the  duty  of  supporting  it,  as  an 
obligation  of  indispensable  necessity ;  because  the  law  of  force  which, 
without  government,  would  arm  every  man  against  his  neighbor,  and 
make  society  a  constant  scene  of  anarchy  and  violence,  becomes,  un 
der  the  rule  of  a  just  government,  the  preserver  of  peace,  and  the 
guardian  of  order  and  security. 

But  there  can  be  no  government,  without  a  certain  amount  of  sub 
jection,  and  this  subjection  demands  the  surrender,  to  the  same  ex 
tent,  of  individual  freedom  and  equality.  Hence  it  is  manifest,  that 
these  are  incompatible  with  government,  because  it  is  impossible  that 
any  should  be  able  to  govern,  unless  the  rest  are  bound  to  obey. 
We  may  say,  indeed,  that  it  is  the  law  which  governs  ;  but  this  is 
only  a  phrase  which  serves  to  mislead  our  personal  pride  of  indepen- 


DOMINION  AND   SUBJECTION.  199 

dence  by  an  agreeable  delusion.  For  the  law  is  the  decree  of  the 
legislature,  and  the  legislature  is  composed  of  men,  commissioned  to 
establish  their  judgment,  as  a  rule  of  obligation  to  the  whole  com 
munity.  And  when  it  is  established,  it  can  not  fulfill  the  work  of 
government,  unless  it  be  administered ;  and  the  administrators  are 
also  men,  set  over  the  rest,  in  order  to  enforce  the  law  on  every  indi 
vidual.  The  administrators  of  the  law  are  therefore,  practically,  the 
rulers — the  actual  governors — whom  the  community  are  bound  to 
obey.  And  hence  it  is  plainly  impossible  that  human  society  should 
exist,  without  dominion  and  subjection. 

Here,  then,  and  not  in  this  imaginary  freedom  and  equality,  is  the 
real  law  of  nature,  because  mankind  have  never  existed,  and  never 
can  exist,  without  government,  and  all  government  involves  dominion 
and  subjection,  more  or  less  complete.  The  principle  is  fixed  by  the 
Almighty  Creator,  and  whatever  be  the  form  under  which  it  is  ex 
hibited,  the  substance  is  the  same.  It  begins  in  the  family.  The 
husband  and  the  wife.  The  parent  and  the  children.  The  master 
and  the  servant  The  teacher  and  the  pupil.  The  magistrate  and 
the  citizen.  The  captain  and  the  sailor.  The  general  and  the  army. 
The  king  or  the  viceroy,  and  the  people.  Every  class  and  all  de 
partments  demand  a  power  to  govern  and  an  obligation  to  obey,  and 
freedom  and  equality  can  be  found  nowhere. 

.  When  we  come  to  consider  the  operation  of  this  essential  prin 
ciple  of  dominion  and  subjection  in  the  case  of  human  government, 
we  find  that  it  commences  with  our  birth,  and  involves  servitude 
for  life,  descending  to  the  offspring,  which  is  the  very  definition  of 
slavery.  But  slavery  is  an  odious  word,  in  modern  ears ;  and  there 
fore  I  use  the  more  acceptable  term  of  subjection.  In  its  practical 
character,  the  government  exercises  dominion  over  the  labor,  the 
liberty,  and  the  life  of  every  individual  under  its  control.  The  labor 
is  involved  in  the  right  of  taxation,  and  in  this  form  we  are  compelled 
to  work  for  the  government,  whether  we  like  it  or  not,  every  day,  or 
pay  an  equivalent  in  property.  The  liberty  is  taken  away  in  prisons 
and  penitentiaries.  The  life  is  involved  not  only  by  ihe  punishment 
of  crime,  but  also  by  our  liability  to  be  drafted  into  the  army,  will 
ing  or  unwilling,  or  even  to  be  forced,  by  a  conscription,  to  stand 
before  the  cannon's  mouth,  at  the^  command  of  our  rulers.  And  this 
subjection  belongs  to  the  duty  of  our  allegiance.  Ic  continues  to 


200  DOMINION  AND '  SUBJECTION. 

the  end  of  our  mortal  existence,  and  attaches  to  our  children,  in  per 
petuity. 

But  all  this,  you  may  say,  is  for  the  advantage  of  the  people.  Cer 
tainly  it  is  ;  for  I  have  already  said  that  society  could  not  exist  with 
out  it.  The  result,  however,  is,  that  not  freedom  and  equality,  but 
DOMINION  AND  SUBJECTION,  are  essential  to  the  best  interests  of  man 
kind.  And  therefore  this  is  the  real  law  of  nature — the  law  adapted 
to  our  nature,  and  to  which  our  nature  is  adapted,  for  we  can  no 
where  find  society  constituted  on  any  other  principle,  since  the  world 
began. 

And  this  is  the  reason  why  the  Sacred  Scriptures  are  so  imperative 
on  the  duty  of  subjection.  "Let  every  soul,"  saith  St.  Paul,  "le 
subject  to  the  higher  powers.  For  there  is  no  power  but  of  God:  the 
powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God.  Whosoever  therefore  resisteth 
the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God  ;  and  they  that  resist  shall 
receive  to  themselves  damnation."  (Rom.  13  :  1,  2.) 

And,  again,  in  his  epistle  to  Titus,  the  Bishop  of  Crete,  the  same 
Apostle  commands  as  follows,  viz. :  "  Put  them  in  mind  to  be  subject 
to  principalities  and  powers,  to  obey  magistrates,  to  be  ready  to 
every  good  work."  (Tit.  3:1.) 

And  again,  we  have  this  most  comprehensive  precept  from  the 
Apostle  Peter:  "Submit  yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of  man,  for 
the  Lord's  sake,  whether  it  be  to  the  Icing  as  supreme,  or  unto  gov 
ernors,  as  unto  them  that  are  sent  by  him,  for  the  punishment  of 
evil-doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them  that  do  well."  (1  Pet.  2  :  13-14.) 

Now  it  is  very  true  that  in  this  country  we  have  no  "  king  as  su 
preme,"  and  yet  we  are  none  the  less  bound  by  the  Apostle's  injunc 
tion  ;  because  we  have  a  Constitution,  the  sixth  article  of  which  es 
tablishes  the  standard  of  our  subjection  in  these  words,  viz. : 

"  This  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall 
be  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties  which  shall  be  made, 
under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme  law 
of  the  land,  and  the  judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby, 
any  thing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  not 
withstanding." 

The  President,  before  he  enters  on  the  execution  of  his  office,  is 
bound  to  take  an  oath  or  affirmation,  to  "preserve,  protect,  and  de 
fend"  this  Constitution.  (Art.  2,  sec.  1.) 

"  The  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  be  vested  in  one 


THE    CONSTITUTION.  201 

Supreme  Court — and  shall  extend  to  all  cases,  in  law  and  equity, 
arising  under  this  Constitution."  (Art.  3,  sec.  1  and  2.) 

"  The  senators  and  representatives,  and  the  members  of  the  several 
State  legislatures,  and  all  executive  and  judicial  officers,  both  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  several  States,  shall  be  bound  by  oath  or 
affirmation  to  support  this  Constitution"  (Art.  6.) 

And  in  this  Constitution,  slavery  is  recognized  and  regarded  as 
a  standing  institution,  first,  in  Article  1,  Section  2,  where  three 
fifths  of  the  slaves  are  taken  as  the  basis  for  the  elective  franchise ; 
and  secondly,  in  Article  4,  Section  2,  where  fugitives,  escaping  from 
one  State  to  another,  are  directed  to  be  "  delivered  up  on  claim  of 
the  party  to  whom  their  service  or  labor  is  due."  Such  is  the  set 
tled  interpretation  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  of  Congress  in  their 
legislation  on  the  subject.  And  it  admits  of  no  dispute.  Twelve 
out  of  the  thirteen  States  which  adopted  the  Constitution  were  Slave 
States  at  the  time.  And  although  Massachusetts  had  abolished 
slavery,  yet  her  delegation,  along  with  that  of  the  other  Eastern 
States,  insisted  on  continuing  the  slave-trade  for  twenty  years  more, 
against  the  wishes  of  Virginia. 

Here,  therefore,  in  this  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  is  the 
supreme  dominion  on  all  those  subjects  for  which  it  was  designed. 
And  to  this,  accordingly,  the  command  of  the  Apostle  applies.  To 
this,  every  naturalized  foreigner  is  obliged  to  swear  allegiance.  To 
this,  every  native  citizen  is  bound,  by  his  birth,  to  be  loyal.  You 
are  bound  by  it.  I  am  bound  by  it.  Every  citizen  in  the  land  is 
bound  by  it,  from  the  President  down  to  the  humblest  laborer  on  the 
soil.  And  therefore  with  us,  the  Constitution  is  the  king,  and  the 
President  is  the  prime  minister. 

Is  there  any  power  in  these  United  States  which  can  absolve  me  from 
this  obligation  ?  Suppose  the  President  were  to  desire  it — which  I 
should  be  very  sorry  to  impute  to  him — could  he  do  so  ?  Clearly 
not ;  for  how  can  he  absolve  the  citizen  from  a  duty  which  he  was 
obliged,  by  oath,  to  take  upon  himself,  before  he  could  enter  upon 
his  eminent  office  ?  If  he  is  sworn  to  "  preserve,  protect,  and  defend" 
the  Constitution,  by  what  imaginable  right  can  he  authorize  me  to 
violate  it  ? 

Can  Congress  absolve  me  from  this  obligation  ?  I  answer,  No  ;  for 
the  same  reason.  The  power  of  Congress,  like  the  power  of  the 
President,  is  exercised  only  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution.  The  mem- 


202  THE    CONSTITUTION. 

bers  of  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives  are  all  bound 
by  the  same  oath.  And  it  would  be  an  absurdity,  surpassing  all 
other  absurdities,  to  suppose  that  a  subordinate  authority,  created 
by  the  Constitution,  should  have  a  right  to  nullify  the  provisions  of 
the  very  law  on  which  it  depends  for  its  only  power  to  legislate  at  all. 

But  we  have  been  told  that  there  is  a  "  higher  law,"  above  the 
Constitution.  And  this,  to  the  Christian,  is  certainly  true.  The 
Almighty  "Law-giver,  who  is  able  to  save  and  to  destroy"  —  the 
glorious  God,  whose  government  rules  the  universe,  whose  throne  is 
the  heavens,  and  the  earth  his  footstool — the  all-wise  and  absolute 
Ruler,  on  whose  decree  the  destiny  of  nations  and  of  individuals  is 
alike  dependent — He  has  given  us  his  unerring  commands  to  be  our 
guide,  and  in  His  Word  we  have  the  plainest  directions  on  this  very 
question.  For  there,  as  I  have  just  shown,  His  inspired  apostles  re 
quire  us  to  be  "subject  to  the  higher  powers"  and  declare,  moreover, 
that  "  whosoever  resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of  God, 
and  they  who  resist,  shall  receive  to  themselves  damnation." 

Yet  this,  as  all  men  acknowledge,  refers  only  to  those  matters  in  which 
the  laws  of  earth  do  not  contradict  the  laws  of  heaven ;  for  no  one 
doubts  that  in  case  of  a  conflict  between  those  laws,  "  we  must  obey 
God  rather  than  man."  Happily,  however,  the  only  point  on  which 
the  ultra-abolitionist  desires  to  trample  on  the  Constitution,  namely, 
slavery,  is  specifically  provided  for  in  the  Bible ;  and  the  same  apos 
tles  who  command  us  to  be  subject  to  the  higher  powers,  command 
the  slave  to  be  obedient  and  faithful  to  his  master,  and  the  master  to 
be  kind  to  his  slave,  while  one  of  them,  St.  Paul,  adopts  a  fugitive 
slave-law  for  himself,  and,  of  his  own  accord,  sends  Onesimus  back 
again  to  his  legal  owner. 

Thus  Christianity  itself  enforces  the  dominion  of  the  Constitution, 
and  I  am  bound  to  be  subject  to  it,  u  not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for 
conscience'  sake,"  (Rom.  13  :  5,)  and  hence  loyalty  to  that  Constitu 
tion  becomes  a  dictate  of  my  religion.  How  any  man  can  consider 
it  a  part  of  his  religion  to  oppose  it — how  any  officer  of  the  Govern 
ment  can  suppose  it  consistent  with  conscience  to  swear  that  he  will 
support  the  Constitution,  and  yet  make  it  his  business  to  break  it 
down — how  any  minister  of  the  Gospel  can  lend  his  influence  to  sus 
tain  such  a  course,  and  even  to  brand  an  honest  effort  to  justify  the 
Constitution,  as  "  unworthy  of  any  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  an 
act  which  "  challenges  indignant  reprobation "  —  these  are  things 


THE    CONSTITUTION.  203 

which  you  may  think  yourself  able  to  explain.  But  for  my  own  part, 
I  regard  them  as  the  most  astounding  facts  in  the  modern  history  of 
human  delusion  and  perversity. 

But  now  I  return  to  Dr.  Jortin,  in  order  to  take  a  brief  survey  of 
his  remaining  statements  about  slavery.  He  saith  that  it  "  still 
continues  among  those  that  know  not  the  Gospel,  and  the  more  is 
the  shame  and  the  pity,  it  is  to  le  found  in  some  places  where  Christ 
ianity  is  professed" 

Now  as  to  the  shame,  why  did  he  not  extend  it  to  the  Apostles, 
whom  he  admits  to  have  sanctioned  its  continuance  ?  For  he  ac 
knowledges  that  "  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  earnestly  exhort  servants 
or  slaves  to  obey  their  masters,  and  to  be  industrious  and  honest, 
and  dutifully  to  serve,  not  only  the  just  and  gentle,  but  the  hard  and 
froward."  And  he  tells  us  that  "  the  religion  of  Christ,  when  it  first 
made  its  progress  in  the  world,  left  the  civil  laws  of  nations  in  a 
great  measure  as  it  found  them,  lest  l>y  altering  or  repealing  them, 
it  should  Iring  confusion  and  disturbance  into  human  society.'1'1  Is 
it  not  manifest  that  the  same  reason  ought  to  have  influenced  the 
Christian  ministers  of  our  day  to  follow  the  Apostle's  example  ?  Was 
it  possible  for  any  man  in  his  sober  senses  to  believe  that  the 
dogmas  of  our  ultra-abolitionists  could  prevail  without  "  bringing 
confusion  and  disturbance  into  human  society"  ?  Alas !  what  a 
commentary  do  we  behold  on  their  opposition  to  the  course  which 
Dr.  Jortin,  and  all  others,  confess  to  have  been  adopted  by  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paul ;  when  not  merely  "  confusion  and  disturbance,"  but 
the  sacrifice  of  half  a  million  of  valuable  lives,  and  the  ravages  of 
the  most  awful  desolation,  and  a  multitude  of  torn  and  bleeding 
hearts,  and  the  kindling  of  bitter  hatred  and  deadly  animosity  be 
tween  those  who  were  once  friends  and  brethren,  have  marked  the 
results  of  their  insane  determination  !  Why  could  they  not  have 
been  content  with  the  guidance  of  the  inspired  Apostles,  confirmed 
by  the  voice  of  the  whole  primitive  Church  ?  Why  must  they  de 
nounce,  as  "  a  covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell,"  the 
Constitution  of  their  country  ?  Why  could  they  not  be  subject  to 
tha-t  "  supreme  law  of  the  land,'^  which  they  were  bound  to  support 
by  every  rule  of  religious  and  civil  obligation,  and  suffer  our  noble 
Union  to  continue  in  harmony  and  peace  ? 

With  regard  to  the  "  pity"  of  Dr.  Jortin,  I  shall  only  say  that  he 
ought  to  have  known  the  condition  of  the  negro  slaves  under  the  cruel 


DE.   JOETIK. 

and  heathen  yoke  of  African  slavery,  as  subjects  to  the  Icing  of  Da 
homey,  before  he  pitied  their  state  in  the  hands  of  their  Christian 
masters.  If  he  had  duly  reflected  upon  this,  he  would  perhaps  have 
discovered  that,  instead  of  being  pitied  for  the  change,  it  was  rather 
a  subject  for  devout  thankfulness  to  the  mercy  of  God,  who,  in  His 
Providence,  had  saved  so  many  of  that  barbarous  and  wretched  race, 
and  given  them  a  lot  so  much  more  elevated  and  hopeful. 

His  subsequent  statement,  that  slavery  was  abolished  through  the 
growing  influence  of  the  Gospel,  is  one  of  the  popular  fallacies  which 
I  shall  consider  by  and  by,  and  prove  it  to  be  entirely  inconsistent 
with  the  facts  of  history.  And  I  shall  close  this  long  chapter  by 
expressing  my  surprise  that  the  excellent  Bishop  Hobart,  when  he 
republished  the  Commentary  of  D'Oyly  and  Mant,  should  have  re 
tained  an  extract,  which,  however  it  might  agree  with  the  constitu 
tional  safety  of  England,  was  plainly  unsuited  to  the  harmony  and 
welfare  of  these  United  States ;  besides  being  in  utter  discordance 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  voice  of  the  universal 
Church,  for  eighteen  centuries  together. 


MACKNIGHT.  205 


CHAPTER   XXIV. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  As  I  consider  freedom  and  equality 
to  be  the  popular  idols  of  the  age,  especially  in  our  own  country,  I 
shall  recur  to  them  again,  because  the  subject  is  by  no  means  ex 
hausted.  But  before  I  resume  these  topics,  I  must  complete  my 
extracts  from  the  modern  Protestant  commentators,  the  next  on  the 
list  being  the  learned  and  candid  Presbyterian,  Macknight,  whose 
"New  Translation,  Paraphrase,  and  Notes  on  the  Epistles"  are  held 
in  just  and  universal  estimation. 

On  the  text  in  1  Cor.  V  :  20,  24,  Let  every  man  abide  in  the  same 
calling  wherein  he  was  called.  Art  thou  called  being  a  servant  f 
Care  not  for  it;  l>ut  if  thou  mayest  l>e  made  free,  use  it  rather,  our 
author  gives  the  following  paraphrase  : 

"  Since  the  Gospel  makes  no  alteration  in  men's  political  state, 
let  every  Christian  remain  in  the  same  political  state  in  which  he 
was  called.  Agreeably  to  this  rule,  wast  thou  called,  being  a  bond 
man  ?  Be  not  thou  solicitous  to  be  made  free,  fancying  that  a 
bondman  is  less  the  object  of  God's  favor  than  a  freeman.  Yet,  if 
thou  canst  even  be  made  free  by  any  lawful  method,  rather  obtain 
thy  freedom." 

And  on  v.  24,  Brethren,  let  every  man,  wherein  he  is  called,  there 
in  abide  with  God,  he  gives  this  interpretation  :  "  Brethren,  whether 
in  a  state  of  bondage  or  of  freedom  each  one  was  called,  in  that  let 
him  remain,  while  he  remains  with  God  ;  that  is,  while  he  remains  a 
Christian."  And  in  the  notes,  he  states  that  "this  exhortation, 
which  is  three  times  given  in  the  compass  of  the  discourse,  was  in 
tended  to  correct  the  disorders  among  the  Christian  slaves  at  Corinth, 
who,  agreeably  to  the  doctrine  of  the  false  teachers,  claimed  their 
liberty,  on  pretense  that  as  brethren  in  Christ,  they  were  on  an 
equality  with  their  Christian  masters." 

On  Eph.  6  :  5,  9,  Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your  mas 
ters  according  to  the  flesh,  with  fear  and  trembling,  etc.,  Dr.  Mac- 
knight  presents  this  statement,  viz. : 


206  MACKNIGHT. 

"  As  the  Gospel  does  not  cancel  the  civil  rights  of  mankind,  I  say 
to  bond-servants,  Obey  your  masters,  who  have  the  property  of  your 
body,  with  fear  and  trembling,  as  liable  to  be  punished  by  them  for 
disobedience ;  obey,  also,  from  the  integrity  of  your  own  disposition, 
as  obeying  Christ,  (v.  6.)  Do  this,  not  merely  when  their  eye  is 
upon  you,  or  they  are  to  examine  your  works  as  those  do  whose 
sole  care  it  is  to  please  men  ;  but  as  bondmen  of  Christ,  doing  the 
will  of  God  in  this  matter  from  the  Lord;  that  is,  diligently,  (v.  V.) 
With  cheerfulness  do  your  duty  to  your  earthly  masters,  as  servants 
to  the  Lord  Christ :  for  in  serving  them  faithfully,  ye  serve  him  ; 
and  therefore  do  not  consider  yourselves  as  servants  to  men  only." 
(Verse  8.)  "  And  that  ye  may  be  supported  under  the  hardships  of 
your  lot,  recollect  what  your  religion  teaches  you,  that  whatever 
good  action  any  man  does,  though  he  should  receive  no  reward  from 
men,  he  shall  receive  at  the  judgment  a  reward  from  Christ,  whether 
he  be  a  slave  or  a  freeman,"  (v.  9.)  "  And  masters,  behave  in  the 
same  benevolent  conscientious  manner  towards  your  slaves:  give 
them  all  things  necessary  with  good  will,  not  aggravating  the  miseries 
of  their  condition  by  the  terror  of  punishment,  but  moderating  threat 
ening  ;  knowing  that  the  Lord  even  of  you  yourselves  is  in  heaven  on 
the  throne  of  God,  and  that  in  judging  his  servants,  respect  of  persons 
is  not  with  him  :  He  will  reward  or  punish  every  one  according  to 
his  real  character." 

In  his  notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  ch.  3,  v.  22,  Servants, 
obey  in  all  things  your  masters,  etc.,  this  learned  commentator  makes 
the  following  remarks  on  our  English  version : 

"  Though  the  word  dov/lof  properly  signifies  a  slave,  our  English 
translators,  in  all  the  places  where  the  duties  of  slaves  are  inculcated, 
have  justly  translated  it  servant;  because  anciently  the  Greeks  and 
Romans  had  scarce  any  servants  but  slaves,  and  because  the  duties 
of  the  hired  servant,  during  the  time  of  his  service,  are  the  same 
with  those  of  the  slave.  So  that  what  the  Apostle  said  to  the  slave, 
was  in  effect  said  to  the  hired  servant.  In  this,"  continues  Dr.  Mac- 
knight,  "  and  the  parallel  passage,  Ephes.  6  :  5,  the  Apostle  is  very 
particular  in  his  precepts  to  slaves  and  lords,  because,  in  all  the  coun 
tries  where  slavery  was  established,  many  of  the  slaves  were  exceed 
ingly  addicted  to  fraud,  lying,  and  stealing,  and  many  of  the  masters 
were  tyrannical  and  cruel  to  their  slaves.  Perhaps  also  he  was  thus 
particular  in  his  precepts  to  slaves,  because  the  Jews  held  perpetual 


MACKNIGHT.  207 

slavery  to  be  unlawful,  and  because  the  Judaizing  teachers  propa 
gated  that  doctrine  in  the  Church.  But  from  the  Apostle's  precepts 
it  may  be  inferred,  that  if  slaves  are  justly  acquired,  they  may  be 
lawfully  retained ;  as  the  Gospel  does  not  make  void  any  of  the 
political  rights  of  mankind" 

1  proceed,  next,  to  the  1st  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  ch.  6,  v. 
1-4,  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yolce,  etc.,  on  which  our 
commentator  gives  the  following  paraphrase,  viz.  : 

u  Let  whatever  Christian  slaves  are  under  the  yoke  of  unbe 
lievers,  pay  their  own  masters  all  respect  and  obedience,  that  the 
character  of  God  whom  we  worship  may  not  be  calumniated,  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  may  not  be  evil  spoken  of,  as  tending  to 
destroy  the  political  rights  of  mankind." 

(V.  2.)  "  And  those  Christian  slaves  who  have  believing  masters, 
let  them  not  despise  them,  fancying  that  they  are  their  equals,  be 
cause  they  are  their  brethren  in  Christ ;  for,  though  all  Christians  are 
equal  as  to  religious  privileges,  slaves  are  inferior  to  their  masters  in 
station.  Wherefore,  let  them  serve  their  masters  more  diligently, 
because  they  who  enjoy  the  benefit  of  their  service  are  believers  and 
beloved  of  God.  These  things  teach  and  exhort  the  brethren  to  prac 
tice  them." 

(V.  3.)  "If  any  one  teach  differently,  ~by  affirming  that,  under  the 
Gospel,  slaves  are  not  hound  to  serve  their  masters,  hut  ought  to  he 
made  free,  and  does  not  consent  to  the  wholesome  commandments 
which  are  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ's,  and  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel, 
which  in  all  points  is  conformable  to  true  morality,"  (v.  4,)  "  he  is 
puffed  up  with  pride,  and  knoweth  nothing,  either  of  the  Jewish  or 
the  Christian  revelation,  although  he  pretends  to  have  great  know 
ledge  of  both.  From  all  such  impious  teachers  withdraw  thyself, 
and  do  not  dispute  with  them" 

And  in  the  notes  on  the  first  and  second  verses,  Dr.  Macknight 
saith  that,  "  By  ordering  Timothy  to  teach  slaves  to  continue  with 
and  obey  their  masters,  the  Apostle  hath  showed  that  the  Christian 
religion  neither  alters  men's  rank  in  life,  nor  abolishes  any  right  to 
which  they  are  entitled,  hy  the  law  of  nature  or  ly  the  law  of  the 
country  wherein  they  live'1  "  Instead  of  encouraging  slaves  to  dis 
obedience,  the  Gospel  makes  them  more  faithful  and  conscientious. 
And  by  sweetening  the  temper  of  masters,  and  inspiring  them  with 
benevolence,  it  renders  the  condition  of  slaves  more  tolerable  than 


208  MACKNIGHT. 

formerly.  For  in  proportion  as  masters  imbibe  the  true  spirit  of  the 
Gospel,  they  will  treat  their  slaves  with  humanity,  and  even  give 
them  their  freedom  when  their  services  merit  such  a  favor." 

This  is  the  language  of  truth,  of  justice,  and  of  right  reason  ;  and 
it  not  only  agrees  with  the  teaching  of  the  apostles,  but  it  is  also  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  from  the  beginning,  combining  the  reverence 
due  to  established  law  and  order,  with  "peace  and  good-will  to 
men." 

And  now  I  come  to  this  fair  and  judicious  commentator's  views  of 
the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  which  it  has  become  the  fashion  of  late, 
amongst  a  considerable  portion  of  the  professed  ministers  of  Christ, 
to  wrest  entirely  from  its  old  and  true  meaning.  These  are  his  words, 
viz.  : 

"  Onesimus,  a  slave,  on  some  disgust,  having  run  away  from  his 
master  Philemon,  came  to  Rome ;  and  falling  into  want,  as  is  sup 
posed,  he  applied  to  the  Apostle,  of  whose  imprisonment  he  had 
heard,  and  with  whose  benevolent  disposition  he  was  well  acquainted, 
having,  as  it  seems,  formerly  seen  him  in  his  master's  house.  Or, 
the  fame  of  the  Apostle's  preaching  and  miracles  having  drawn  Onesi 
mus  to  hear  some  of  the  many  discourses,  which  he  delivered  in  his 
own  hired  house  in  Rome,  these  made  such  an  impression  on  him  that 
he  became  a  sincere  convert  to  the  Christian  faith.  For  the  Apostle 
calls  him,  (v.  9,)  Ms  son  whom  Tie  had  begotten  in  his  bonds.  After  his 
conversion,  Onesimus  abode  with  the  Apostle,  and  served  him  with 
the  greatest  assiduity  and  affection.  But  being  sensible  of  Ms  fault 
in  running  away  from  his  master,  he  wished  to  repair  that  injury 
by  returning  to  him.  At  the  same  time  being  afraid  that  on  his  re 
turn,  his  master  would  inflict  on  him  the  punishment  which,  by  the 
law  or  custom  of  Phrygia,  was  due  to  a  fugitive  slave,  and  which,  as 
Grotius  says,  he  could  inflict  without  applying  to  any  magistrate, 
he  besought  the  Apostle  to  write  to  Philemon,  requesting  him  to  for 
give  and  receive  him  again  into  his  family." 

"  To  account  for  the  solicitude  which  the  Apostle  showed  in  this 
affair,  we  must  not,  with  some,  suppose  that  Philemon  was  keen  and 
obstinate  in  his  resentments.  But  rather  that  having  a  number  of 
slaves,  on  whom  the  pardoning  of  Onesimus  too  easily  might  have 
had  a  bad  effect,  he  might  judge  some  punishment  necessary  as  a 
warning  to  the  rest.  At  least  the  Apostle  could  not  have  considered 
the  pardoning  of  Onesimus  as  a  matter  which  merited  so  much  earnest 


MACKNIGHT.  209 

entreaty  with  a  person  of  Philemon's  piety,  benevolence,  and  grati 
tude,  unless  he  had  suspected  him  to  have  entertained  some  such 
apprehension." 

"  What  the  Apostle  wrote  to  Philemon  on  this  occasion  is  highly 
worthy  of  our  notice,  namely,  that  although  he  had  great  need  of  an 
affectionate  honest  servant  to  minister  to  him  in  his  bonds,  such  as 
Onesimus  was,  and  although,  if  Onesimus  had  remained  with  him 
he  would  only  have  discharged  the  duty  which  Philemon  himself 
owed  to  his  spiritual  father ;  yet  the  Apostle  would  by  no  means  do- 
tain  Onesimus  without  Philemon's  leave,  because  it  belonged  to  him 
to  dispose  of  his  own  slave  in  the  way  he  thought  proper.  Such  was 
the  Apostle's  regard  to  justice  and  to  the  rights  of  mankind." 

This  language  is  clear  and  conclusive.  But  I  shall  make  one 
extract  more  to  sum  up  the  whole. 

"  Chrysostom,"  saith  Dr.  Macknight,  "  hath  showed  several  excel 
lent  uses  which  may  be  made  of  this-epistle,  to  which  I  add  some 
others,  namely,  that  although  no  article  of  faith  is  professedly  hand 
led  in  this  epistle,  and  no  precepts  for  the  regulation  of  our  conduct 
be  directly  delivered  in  it,  yet  the  allusions  to  the  doctrines  and  pre 
cepts  of  the  Gospel  found  in  it  may  be  improved  in  various  respects 
for  regulating  our  conduct.  For  it  is  therein  insinuated,  1.  That  all 
Christians  are  on  a  level.  Onesimus,  the  slave,  on  becoming  a  Christ 
ian,  is  the  Apostle's  son  and  Philemon's  brother.  2.  That  Christ 
ianity  makes  no  alteration  in  men's  political  state.  Onesimus,  the 
slave,  did  not  become  a  freeman  by  embracing  Christianity,  but'was 
still  obliged  to  be  Philemon's  slave  forever,  unless  his  master  gave 
him  his  freedom.  3.  That  slaves  should  not  le  taken  nor  detained 
from  their  masters  without  their  master's  consent.  4.  That  we 
should  not  contemn  persons  of  low  estate,  nor  disdain  to  help  the 
meanest  when  it  is  in  our  power  to  assist  them,  but  should  love  and 
do  good  to  all  men,"  etc. 

The  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  verses  are  so  frequently  wrested  from 
their  proper  meaning  by  ultra-abolitionists,  that  it  may  be  well  to 
quote  them  with  our  author's  paraphrase. 

(V.  15.)  For  perhaps  he  therefore  departed  for  a  season,  that  thou 
shouldest  receive  him  forever. 

(V.  16.)  Not  now  as  a  servant,  lut  above  a  servant,  a  brother  le- 
loved,  specially  to  me,  lut  how  much  more  to  thee,  loth  in  the  flesh 
and  in  the  Lord. 


210  MACKNIGHT. 

The  paraphrase  is  as  follows,  viz.  : 

(V.  15.)  "To  mitigate  thy  resentment,  consider  that  perhaps  also 
for  this  reason  he  was  separated  from  thee  for  a  little  while,  that  thou 
mightest  have  him  thy  slave  for  life.'1'1 

(V.  16.)  "  No  longer  as  a  slave  only,  but  above  a  slave,  even  a  be 
loved  Christian  brother,  especially  to  me  who  know  his  worth,  and 
have  been  indebted  to  him  for  his  services  :  how  much  more  to  thee 
as  a  brother,  both  by  nation  and  by  religion,  icho  will  serve  thee  with 
more  understanding,  fidelity,  and  affection  than  before" 

And  in  the  note  on  the  2nd  verse  the  commentator  saith  that  "  By 
telling  Philemon  that  he  would  now  have  Onesimus  forever,  the  Apos 
tle  intimated  to  him  his  firm  persuasion  that  Onesimus  would  never 
any  more  run  away  from  him." 

These  extracts  are  abundantly  sufficient  to  prove  the  general  ac 
cordance  of  the  author  with  the  primitive  school  of  the  ancient  fathers. 
And  little  more  remains  to  complete  the  list  of  our  modern  Protestant 
annotators. 


ALFOKD.  211 


CHAPTER    XXV. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  From  the  well-known  volumes  of  the 
Presbyterian  divine,  Dr.  Macknight,  I  proceed  to  the  critical  and 
exegetical  commentary  on  the  Greek  Testament,  by  Henry  Alford, 
B.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  Third  London  Edition  of  1857,  a  work  of 
extraordinary  learning  and  most  extensive  research.  Here  I  find  an 
interesting  passage  in  which  the  old  interpretation  of  St.  Chrysostorn 
is  vindicated,  in  opposition  to  the  majority  of  the  modern  expositors. 
The  text  is  in  St.  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  ch.  7  :  21 : 
"Art  thou  called  leing  a  servant?  Care  not  for  it ;  but  if  tliou 
mayest  le  made  free,  use  it  rather."  And  this  is  Dean  Alford's 
exegesis,  viz.  : 

"  Wert  thou  called  (converted)  a  slave,  let  it  not  be  a  trouble  to 
thee,  but  if  thou  art  even  able  to  become  free,  use  it  (i.  e.,  remain  in 
slavery)  rather.  This  rendering,  which  is  that  of  Chrys.,  Theodoret, 
Theophyl.,  Oecum.,  Phot.,  Camerar.,  Estius,  Wolf,  Bengel,  Meyer,  De 
Wette,  and  others,  is  required  by  the  usage  of  the  particles.— It  is 
also  required  by  the  context,  for  the  burden  of  the  whole  passage  is  : 
1  Let  each  man  remain  in  the  state  in  which  he  was  called:— It  would 
be  quite  inconsistent  with  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle  that  in  Christ 
freeman  and  slave  are  all  one,  (Gal.  3  :  28,)— and  with  his  remarks 
on  the  urgency  and  shortness  of  the  time  in  this  chapter,  to  turn  out 
of  his  way  to  give  a  precept  merely  of  worldly  wisdom,  that  a  slave 
should  become  free  if  he  could. — Christ's  service  is  perfect  freedom, 
and  the  Christian's  freedom  is  the  service  of  Christ.  But  here  the 
Apostle  takes,  in  each  case,  one  member  of  this  double  antithesis 
from  the  outer  world,  one  from  the  spiritual.  The  (actual)  slave  is 
(spiritually)  free.  The  (actually)  free  is  a  (spiritual)  slave.  So  that 
the  two  are  so  mingled,  in  the  Lord,  that  the  slave  need  not  trouble 
himself  about  his  slavery,  nor  seek  for  this  world's  freedom,  seeing 
he  has  a  more  glorious  freedom  in  Christ,  and  seeing  also  that  his 


212  WORDSWORTH. 

brethren,  who  seem  to  be  free  in  this  world,  are  in  fact  Christ's  serv 
ants,  as  lie  is  a  servant." 

In  the  Prolegomena  of  the  same  author  on  the  Epistle  to  Philemon, 
(vol.  iii.  p.  113,)  we  read  as  follows,  viz. :  "  Onesimus,  a  native  of 
Colosse,  the  slave  of  Philemon,  had  absconded,  after  having,  as  it 
appears,  defrauded  his  master,  (ver.  18.)  He  fled  to  Rome  and  there 
was  converted  to  Christianity  by  St.  Paul.  Being  persuaded  ~by  him 
to  return  to  his  master,  he  was  furnished  with  this  letter  to  recom 
mend  him,  now  no  longer  merely  a  servant,  but  a  brother  also,  to 
favorable  reception  by  Philemon." 

I  conclude  this  long  array  of  authorities  with  some  eloquent  and 
very  admirable  extracts  from  the  late  work  of  the  Rev.  Chr.  Words 
worth,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Westminster,  entitled,  "  The  New  Testament 
of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  original  Greek,  with 
Notes"  London  Edition  of  1859,  where  he  speaks  thus,  on  the  Epis 
tle  to  Philemon,  in  Part  iii,  p.  327  : 

"  Some  persons  in  ancient  times  expressed  surprise  that  this  short 
Epistle,  addressed  to  a  private  person  on  a  private  occasion,  should 
be  publicly  read  in  the  Church,  and  be  received  as  a  part  of  Canonical 
Scripture." 

"  But  the  world's  history  has  fully  justified  the  Church  in  this 
respect." 

"In  the  age  when  it  was  written,  Europe  was  filled  with  slaves. 
Wheresoever  the  word  '  servants  '  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  we 
must  understand  'slaves' — slaves  purchased  with  money  or  taken  in 
war,  or  reared  from  slaves  in  the  house  of  their  master.  Phrygia, 
in  which  Colossas  was  situated,  was  the  land  of  slaves.  A  Phrygian 
was  another  word  for  a  slave.  Nothing  could  be  more  miserable 
than  their  condition." 

"  But  Christianity  was  for  all.  How  would  it  affect  them  ?  What 
would  it  do  for  them  ?  Would  it  leave  them  in  their  present  misery  ? 
Would  it  mitigate  the  rigor  of  their  sufferings  ?  And  if  so,  by  what 
means  ?" 

"  The  answer  to  these  questions  is  supplied  by  the  EPISTLE  TO 
PHILEMON." 

"  That  short  letter,  dictated  from  '  the  hired  house '  of  the  aged 
Apostle,  a  prisoner  at  Rome,  may  be  called  a  divine  Act  of  Emanci 
pation  ;  one  far  more  powerful  than  any  edict  of  Manumission  pro 
mulgated  by  sovereigns  and  senates ;  an  Act,  from  whose  sacred 


WOKDS  WORTH.  218 

principles  all  humcin  statutes  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  derive  their 
virtue ;  an  Act  which,  by  its  silent  influence,  such  as  characterizes 
all  genuine  reformations,  gradually  melted  away  and  thawed  the 
hardships  of  slavery,  by  softening  and  warming  the  heart  of  the  mas 
ter  with  the  pure  and  holy  flame  of  Christian  love ;  an  Act  which, 
while  it  thus  ameliorated  the  condition  of  the  slave,  not  only  did  not 
impair  the  just  rights  of  the  master,  l)ut  greatly  improved  them,  by 
dignifying  service,  and  by  securing  obedience  to  man  as  a  duty  done 
to  Christ,  and  to  be  hereafter  rewarded  by  him,  and  by  changing  the 
fearful  slave  into  an  honest  servant  and  a  faithful  brother,  and  by 
binding  every  Onesimus  in  bonds  of  holy  communion  with  every 
Philemon,  in  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,  in  the  fellowship  of  the 
same  prayers,  and  of  the  same  Scriptures  and  sacraments,  in  the 
worship  of  the  same  Lord,  and  in  the  heritorship  of  the  same 
heaven." 

"  Therefore  the  writing  of  this  short  letter  was  like  a  golden  era  in 
the  history  of  mankind.  Happy  is  it  for  the  world  that  this  Epistle, 
dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  has  ever  been  read  in  the  Church  as 
Canonical  Scripture.  And  every  one  who  considers  the  principles 
laid  down  in  this  Epistle,  and  reflects  on  the  reformation  they  have 
wrought  in  the  domestic  and  social  life  of  Europe  and  the  world,  and 
on  the  felicitous  results  which  would  flow  from  them  in  still  greater 
abundance  if  they  were  duly  received  and  observed,  will  acknowledge, 
with  devout  thankfulness  to  God,  that  inestimable  benefits,  civil 
and  temporal  as  well  as  spiritual,  have  been  conferred  on  the  world 
by  Christianity." 

"  St.  Paul  did  not  constrain  Philemon  to  emancipate  his  slave 
Onesimus,  but  he  inculcated  such  principles  as  divested  slavery  of 
its  evils.  The  Gospel  of  Christ,  as  preached  by  the  holy  Apostle, 
did  not  exasperate  the  slave-owner  by  angry  invectives,  and  by  con 
tumacious  and  contemptuous  sarcasms.  It  did  not  embitter  him 
against  the  slave,  and  injure  the  interests  of  the  slave  himself  by  an 
acrimonious  advocacy  of  his  rights,  and  by  a  violent  and  intemperate 
partisanship,  and  thus  inflict  damage  and  discredit  on  the  sacred 
cause  of  Emancipation.  But,  by  Christianizing  the  master,  the  Gos 
pel  enfranchised  the  slave.  It  did  not  legislate  about  mere  names 
and  forms,  but  it  went  to  the  root  of  the  evil,  it  spoke  to  the  heart 
of  man.  When  the  heart  of  the  master  was  filled  with  divine  grace, 
and  was  warmed  with  the  love  of  Christ,  the  rest  would  soon  follow. 


21-i  WORDS  WOETH. 

The  lips  would  speak  kind  words,  the  hand  would  do  liberal  things. 
Every  Onesimus  would  be  treated  by  every  Philemon  as  a  beloved 
brother  in  Christ." 

"  Here  is  the  genuine  specific  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  Here 
also  is  the  true  groundwork  for  the  extinction  of  caste  in  India.  It  is 
to  be  found  in  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  in  the  incor 
poration  of  all  nations  and  families  of  the  earth  in  the  mystical 
Body  of  Christ.  "Wise  will  be  the  Sovereigns,  Senates,  and  States, 
who  recognize  this  truth." 

To  this  quotation,  which  is  worthy  of  all  praise,  I  shall  only  add 
the  comments  of  the  same  author  on  St.  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  Timo 
thy,  ch.  6  :  v.  1 :  "  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yoke,  count 
their  own  masters  worthy  of  all  honor"  etc. 

"St.  Paul  here,"  saith  Dr.  Wordsworth,  "combats  and  condemns 
that  false  teaching  which,  under  color  of  preaching  the  doctrines  of 
Universal  Liberty,  Equalit}7",  and  Fraternity  in  Christ,  enlisted  the 
passions  of  slaves  against  masters,  and  subjects  against  their  rulers, 
and  thus  exposed  the  Name  of  God  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel 
to  reproach  and  blasphemy  from  the  Heathen,  as  if  it  were  a  religion 
of  anarchy  and  sedition,  and  ministered  to  man's  evil  appetites  and 
love  of  lucre,  under  the  name  of  piety  and  godliness." 

"These  anarchical  doctrines  were  a  natural  product  of  a  diseased 
Judaism.  The  Jews,  supposing  themselves  to  be  the  favored  people 
of  God,  resented  all  secular  rule  as  an  usurpation  on  the  prerogatives 
of  Jehovah.  Their  Rabbis  taught  that  it  was  a  sinful  thing  to  own 
any  mortal  master,  and  to  be  bond-servants  to  heathens." 

"They  might,  therefore,  in  hatred  to  Christianity,  maliciously  per 
vert  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  to  purposes  congenial  to  their  own 
notions;  or  they  might,  even  unwittingl}7",  so  misunderstand  and  mis 
interpret  them,  as  to  render  them  hateful  to  society,  and  subversive 
of  civil  government  and  of  domestic  peace." 

"  The  great  Apostle  had,  therefore,  a  difficult  task  to  perform,  in 
vindicating  and  maintaining,  on  the  one  side,  the  great  doctrine  of 
Christian  Liberty  against  some  of  the  Judaizers  ;  and  in  asserting 
and  upholding  the  duty  of  Christian  subjection,  on  the  other  hand, 
against  those  of  the  same  class  who  abused  the  sacred  name  of  Lib 
erty  into  a  plea  for  licentiousness." 

"  How  beautifully  does  the  divine  wisdom,  charity,  and  courage, 


WORDSWORTH.  215 

with  which  the  holy  Apostle  was  endued,  shine  forth  in  the  execution 
of  this  difficult  work  in  his  Epistles  1" 

"  The  relative  duty  of  masters  and  slaves  is  to  be  borne  by  both 
parties.  Each  of  the  two  takes  hold  of  it  at  its  own  end,  and  like  the 
fruitful  cluster  of  the  grapes  of  Eshcol,  (Num.  13  :  23,)  it  is  to  be  car 
ried  on  the  shoulders  of  both.  And,  like  that  cluster,  this  burden  is 
also  a  benefit.  St.  Paul  will  not  flatter  masters  at  the  expense  of 
their  slaves,  nor  slaves  at  the  expense  of  their  masters.  Each  is  to 
be  a  benefactor  to  the  other.  The  master  owes  food  and  wages  to  the 
slave ;  the  slave  owes  faithful  service  to  the  master." 

"  The  force  and  wisdom  of  this  Apostolic  teaching  will  be  more 
evident  and  impressive,  when  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  these  words  of 
St.  Paul,  addressed  to  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  would  be  listened  to 
by  masters  and  slaves,  gathered  together  in  the  Church,  and  hearing 
this  Epistle  publicly  read  in  the  religious  congregations  at  Ephesus 
and  other  great  cities  of  the  world." 

"  If  any  man,  under  color  of  Christian  liberty,  teaches  otherwise, 
and  exempts  slaves  from  obedience  to  their  masters,  St.  Paul,  in  holy 
indignation,  inveighs  against  such  a  man,  as  one  that  is  proud  and 
Tcnoweth  nothing,  but  doteth  about  questions  and  strifes  of  words.'1'1 

"  The  false  teachers  ingratiated  themselves  with  slaves,  and  other 
dependents,  by  flattering  them,  that  because  all  men  are  equal  and 
brethren  in  Christ,  therefore  they  need  not  be  subject  to  their  mas 
ters  ;  or  that,  if  they  were  subject,  they  had  a  claim  to  greater  tem 
poral  advantages  than  they  enjoyed ;  and  thus  they  excited  slaves  to 
disobedience,  and  made  the  profession  of  the  Gospel  to  be  a  matter 
of  secular  traffic  and  worldly  lucre." 

"St.  Paul  commands  masters  to  give  to  their  slaves  what  is  just 
and  equal,  (Col.  4:1,)  but  he  also  teaches  slaves  this  lesson :  If  a 
man  have  food  and  raiment,  let  him  be  therewith  content." 

With  these  excellent  comments  of  the  Rev.  Canon  Wordsworth,  I 
concur  most  heartily  ;  in  fervent  thankfulness  to  God,  that  up  to  the 
year  1859,  our  venerated  mother  Church  of  England  has  proclaimed 
none  other  but  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  her  latest 
utterance  is  in  harmony  with  the  only  divine  standard  of  wisdom, 
truth,  and  peace. 


216        PERVERSION  OF  THE  PROPHETS. 


CHAPTER   XXVI. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Before  I  conclude  the  survey  of  the 
Scriptures,  it  may  be  well  to  notice  a  perversion,  \vhich  it  is  becoming 
quite  common  to  urge,  as  a  convincing  argument,  on  behalf  of  ultra- 
abolitionism.  I  allude  to  the  favorite  quotation  from  the  prophet 
Isaiah,  58  :  6  :  "Is  not  this  the  fast  that  I  have  chosen  ?  To  loose 
the  bands  of  wickedness,  to  undo  the  heavy  burdens,  and  to  let  the 
oppressed  go  free,  and  that  ye  break  every  yoke  ?  "  This  is  applied, 
without  hesitation,  to  the  case  of  the  slaves  ;  and  some  of  our  modern 
wise  men  even  consider  it  to  be  a  divine  repeal  of  the  law  previously 
laid  down,  for  the  perpetual  bondage  of  the  heathen  races,  by  the 
express  authority  of  the  God  of  Israel ! 

There  is  something  so  absurd  in  the  idea  that  a  formal  law,  set 
forth  repeatedly  by  the  Almighty,  should  be  repealed  by  words  like 
these,  which  do  not  refer  to  it  all,  and  are  susceptible  of  quite  a 
different  application,  that  I  should  not  have  thought  it  worthy  of 
notice,  if  it  were  not  manifest  that  it  passes  for  sound  reasoning  with 
the  popular  mind.  It  is  indeed  a  sad  proof  of  the  low  state  of  rever 
ence  towards  the  Word  of  God  which  permits  such  a  wresting  of 
the  Scriptures,  not  only  by  laymen,  but  by  many  of  those  who  are 
the  commissioned  servants  of  the  sanctuary. 

I  shall  show,  therefore,  by  direct  proof,  that  this  novel  commentary 
on  the  language  of  the  prophet  is  totally  unwarranted.  The  true 
state  of  the  matter  is  this.  The  Israelites  were  expressly  directed,  by 
the  divine  law,  to  buy  slaves  of  the  heathen,  and  to  hold  them  as  an 
inheritance  for  themselves  and  their  posterity  forever.  Hence,  as  we 
have  seen,  those  slaves  were  not  set  free  at  the  Jubilee,  the  benefits 
of  which  were  wholly  confined  to  the  children  of  Israel,  who  had  a 
family  and  a  possession  in  the  land  to  which  they  might  return.  But 
with  respect  to  the  servitude  of  their  own  brethren,  they  were  as  ex 
pressly  forbidden  to  hold  them  in  bondage  longer  than  six  years  ; 
and  at  the  expiration  of  that  time  they  were  commanded  to  set  them 


PERVERSION  OF  THE  PROPHETS.        217 

free,  either  at  the  seventh  year,  which  was  the  year  of  release,  or,  if 
that  season  intervened,  at  the  year  of  Jubilee.  It  often  happened, 
however,  that  the  Jews  violated  this  law,  and  continued  the  yoke  of 
bondage  over  their  own  brethren,  and  grievously  oppressed  them, 
long  after  the  period  when  they  were  entitled  to  their  freedom.  This 
was  the  abuse  against  which  the  prophets  uttered  their  strong  de 
nunciations,  by  the  direction  of  the  Lord.  The  case  of  the  heathen 
races,  whom  they  were  authorized  by  the  Almighty  to  retain  in  per 
petual  slavery,  was  not  contemplated  in  any  way.  And  hence  we 
may  see  the  glaring  inconsistency  of  this  modern  misapplication,  be 
cause  it  makes  the  Deity  contradict  himself,  and  sets  one  part  of  his 
Word  in  direct  opposition  to  the  other. 

In  order  to  place  this  matter,  therefore,  in  its  proper  light,  we  have 
only  to  look  at  the  case  as  it  stands  fully  exemplified  in  the  book  of 
the  prophet  Jeremiah  34  :  8— IT.  The  passage  is  long,  but  I  shall 
present  it  in  its  own  integrity : 

"  This  is  the  word  that  came  unto  Jeremiah  from  the  Lord,  after 
that  the  King  Zedekiah  had  made  a  covenant  with  all  the  people 
which  were  in  Jerusalem,  to  proclaim  liberty  unto  them,  that  every 
man  should  let  his  man-servant,  and  every  man  his  maid-servant, 
'being  an  Hebrew  or  a  Hebrewess,  go  free,  that  none  should  save 
himself  of  them,  to  wit,  of  a  Jew  his  brother.  Now  when  all  the 
princes  and  all  the  people  which  had  entered  into  the  covenant  heard 
that  every  one  should  let  his  man-servant,  and  every  one  his  maid 
servant  go  free,  that  none  should  save  themselves  of  them  any  more, 
then  they  obeyed  and  let  them  go.  But  afterwards  they  turned, 
and  caused  the  servants  and  the  handmaids  whom  they  had  let  go 
free,  to  return,  and  brought  them  into  subjection  for  servants  and  for 
handmaids.  Therefore  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Jeremiah  from 
the  Lord,  saying :  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel :  I  made  a 
covenant  with  your  fathers  in  the  day  that  I  brought  them  forth  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondmen,  saying :  At  the 
end  of  seven  years,  let  ye  go  every  man  his  brother  an  Hebrew  which 
hath  been  sold  unto  thee,  and  when  he  hath  served  thee  six  years, 
thou  shalt  let  him  go  free  from  thee ;  but  your  fathers  hearkened  not 
unto  me,  neither  inclined  their  ear.  And  ye  were  now  turned  and 
had  done  right  in  my  sight,  in  proclaiming  liberty  every  man  to  his 
neighbor,  and  ye  had  made  a  covenant  before  me  in  the  house  that 
is  called  by  my  name.  But  ye  turned  and  polluted  my  name,  and 
10 


218        PERVERSION  OF  THE  PROPHETS. 

caused  every  man  his  servant,  and  every  man  his  handmaid,  whom 
he  had  set  at  liberty  at  their  pleasure,  to  return,  and  brought  them 
into  subjection,  to  be  unto  you  for  servants  and  for  handmaids. 
Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord :  Ye  have  not  hearkened  unto  me,  in 
proclaiming  liberty,  every  one  to  his  brother,  and  every  man  to  his 
neighbor  ;  behold  I  proclaim  a  liberty  for  you,  saith  the  Lord,  to  the 
sword,  to  the  pestilence,  and  to  the  famine,  and  I  will  make  you  to 
be  removed  into  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth,"  etc. 

Here  we  have  a  plain  statement  of  the  oppression  for  which  the 
Jews  were  so  often  rebuked  by  the  prophets.  It  was  oppression 
practiced  upon  their  own  brethren  the  Hebrews,  against  the  express 
law  of  the  Almighty,  and  had  no  relation  whatever  to  the  slaves  of 
the  heathen  races,  whom  they  were  directly  authorized  to  hold  in 
bondage,  as  an  inheritance  for  themselves  and  their  children,  in  per 
petuity.  Thus  we  find  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  in  the  Bible. 
It  is  only  those  modern  interpreters,  choosing,  in  the  very  face  of 
the  sacred  record,  to  set  the  Old  Testament  at  variance  with  itself 
on  this  subject,  who  are  unhappily  employed,  however  unconsciously, 
in  bringing  confusion  into  the  Word  of  God,  and  forging  weapons  for 
the  use  of  infidelity. 

So  plain  is  this  matter,  that  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  state  the 
opinions  of  commentators.  Yet,  to  remove  all  possibility  of  doubt,  I 
shall  set  down  a  few. 

Thus,  in  D'Oyly  and  Mant,  we  read,  (Jer.  34  :  8,)  "  By  the  law  of 
Moses,  (Exod.  21  :  2,  Deut.  15  :  12,)  the  Israelites  were  not  allowed 
to  detain  their  brethren  in  perpetual  bondage,  but  were  required  to 
let  them  go  free  after  having  served  six  years.  This  law,  it  seems, 
had  fallen  into  disuse ;  but  King  Zedekiah,  upon  the  approach  of  the 
Chaldean  army,  whether  from  religious  motives,  or  a  political  view  to 
employ  the  men  who  were  set  free  in  the  service  of  the  war,  engaged 
the  people  to  act  conformably  to  the  law,  and  they  released  their 
brethren  accordingly.  But  no  sooner  were  their  fears  abated  by  the 
retreat  of  the  Chaldeans,  than,  in  defiance  of  every  principle  of  reli 
gion,  honor,  and  humanity,  they  imposed  the  yoke  of  servitude  anew 
upon  those  unhappy  persons." 

So  in  Scott's  commentary  on  the  same  passage  :  "  The  law  of 
liberating  Hebrew  slaves,  at  the  end  of  seven  years,  was  an  express 
condition  of  the  national  covenant.  The  seventh  year  was  the  year 
of  release,  (Deut.  15  :  9,)  consequently  servants  were  to  continue  in 


COMMENTATORS.  219 

service  but  six  years,  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh,  were  to  be 
Jet  go  free." 

So  Clarke's  commentary,  on  the  eleventh  verse :  "  They  had  agreed 
to  manumit  them  at  the  end  of  the  seventh  year,  but  when  the 
seventh  year  was  ended,  they  recalled  their  engagement,  and  detained 
their  servants."  And  on  the  seventeenth  verse,  I  proclaim  a  liberty 
for  you,  etc.,  the  paraphrase  of  Clarke  is  this,  "  You  promised  to 
give  liberty  to  your  enslaved  brethren :  I  was  pleased  and  bound  the 
sword  in  its  sheath.  You  broke  your  promise,  and  brought  them 
again  into  bondage.  I  gave  liberty  to  the  sword,"  etc. 

So  in  the  Comprehensive  Commentary,  "When  Jerusalem  was 
closely  besieged  by  the  Chaldean  army,  the  princes  and  people  agreed 
on  a  reformation  in  one  thing,  and  that  concerning  their  servants. 
The  law  of  God  was  very  express — that  those  of  their  own  nation 
should  not  be  held  in  servitude  above  seven  years,  whether  they  had 
sold  themselves  into  servitude  for  the  payment  of  their  debts,  or 
were  sold  by  the  judges  for  the  punishment  of  their  crimes.  Whereas 
those  of  other  nations,  taken  in  war  or  bought  with  money,  might  be 
held  in  perpetual  slavery,  they  and  theirs,"  etc. 

So  Henry,  in  his  commentary,  and  in  his  remarks  on  Is.  58  :  6, 
saith,  the  Jews  "  were  as  covetous  and  unmerciful  as  ever.  *  Ye 
exact  all  your  labors  from  your  servants,  and  will  neither  release 
them  according  to  the  law,  nor  relax  the  rigor  of  their  servitude.' 
This  was  their  fault  before  the  captivity.  (Jer.  34:  8-9.)  It  was 
no  less  their  fault  after  their  captivity."  (Neh.  5  :  2.) 

So  far,  then,  was  this  passage  about  breaking  every  yoke  a  repeal 
of  the  divine  law,  that  the  sin  of  the  Israelites  consisted  in  their  dis 
obedience  to  that  law  precisely  as  it  stood  ;  and  for  that  disobedience 
the  Almighty,  by  the  mouth  of  His  prophets,  strongly  rebukes  them. 
Even  the  commentators  who  have  written  since  the  abolition  excite 
ment  in  England,  and  who  show,  here  and  there,  its  powerful  influ 
ence,  do  not  intimate  the  slightest  wish  to  wrest  the  true  meaning  of 
those  texts.  That  seems  to  have  been  the  task  of  a  still  later  period, 
and  is  one  of  the  newest  inventions  in  Biblical  interpretation  which 
threaten  the  welfare  of  the  Church  and  of  the  country.  For  I  can 
imagine  no  transgression  more  odious  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  more 
sure  to  forfeit  His  blessing,  than  the  willful  determination  to  distort 
His  revealed  Word,  and  make  it  speaJc,  not  as  it  truly  is,  but  as 


220  CONCLUSION. 

men,  in  their  insane  pride  of  superior  philanthropy,  fancy  that  it 
ought  to  1)6. 

I  have  now,  my  Right  Reverend  Brother,  gone  over  the  list  which 
I  promised,  and  more ;  showing  the  general  sense  of  the  Church 
from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  to  our  own,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  which  some  persons  claim  as  being,  at  this  day,  en 
listed  on  the  side  of  ultra-abolitionism.  That  this  is  a  total  mistake, 
I  shall  prove  in  the  next  chapter. 


THE  CHURCH  OF  ROME.  221 


CHAPTER    XXVII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  Church  of  Rome,  as  you  are  per 
fectly  aware,  ruled  almost  the  whole  continent  of  Europe,  from  the 
seventh  to  the  sixteenth  century,  and,  since  the  Reformation,  still  re 
tains  nearly  one  half  of  the  Christian  world.  In  very  many  import 
ant  questions  of  faith,  of  government,  and  of  worship,  I  need  hardly 
say  that  we  differ  from  the  Papal  communion,  and  claim  a  far  more 
complete  accordance  with  the  primitive  Church  of  the  first  four  cen 
turies.  But  in  matters  of  Christian  morality,  there  is  happily  no  se 
rious  difference  of  opinion  sanctioned  amongst  the  professed  disciples 
of  the  blessed  Redeemer.  And  in  the  lawfulness  of  slavery,  as  now 
established  in  the  Southern  States,  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Cath 
olic  is  precisely  the  same  with  that  of  Protestants,  as  I  shall  proceed 
to  prove,  by  the  best  testimony. 

The  work  of  the  late  Right  Reverend  John  England,  first  Bishop 
of  Charleston,  entitled  "Letters  to  the  Hon.  John  Forsyth,  on  the 
subject  of  Domestic  Slavery,"  shall  be  my  text-book,  because  I  con 
sider  it  of  unquestionable  authority.  The  writer  was  one  of  the 
most  learned  and  accomplished  prelates  of  his  Church,  and  no  one 
can  fairly  doubt  his  competency.  His  personal  sympathies,  like  my 
own,  were  not  partial  to  the  institution,  while  his  high  official  posi 
tion,  and  his  acknowledged  eminence  in  literary  character,  give  assur 
ance  that  his  statements  are  worthy  of  implicit  confidence.  My  quo 
tations  are  from  the  third  volume  of  his  works,  published  in  Balti 
more,  A.D.  1849. 

The  ultra-abolitionists  who  say  that  slaveholding  is  a  deadly  sin, 
under  any  circumstances,  are  accustomed  to  rely  on  the  Apostolic 
letter  of  Pope  Gregory  XVI.  dated  December  3d,  1839.  In  that  let 
ter  the  Pontiff  refers  to  the  action  of  his  predecessors,  namely,  of  Pope 
Paul  III,  May  29,  1537,  of  Pope  Urban  VIII,  April  22, 1639,  of  Pope 
Benedict  XIV,  Dec.  20,  1741,  and  also  of  Pope  Pius  VII,  all  directed 
against  the  slave-trade,  which  our  laws  pronounce  to  be  Piracy. 


I 

222  BISHOP  ENGLAND. 

Speaking  of  the  last  of  these  Apostolic  letters,  Bishop  England  saith 
that  "it  is  not  at  all  applicable  to  what  is  known  amongst  us,  as  do 
mestic  slavery.  Our  holy  father,  Pope  Gregory  XVI,  is  not  the  as 
sociate  of  the  abolitionists."  (Letter  1,  p.  116.) 

"  At  the  late  Council  in  Baltimore,"  continues  our  author,  "  that 
document  was  formally  read  and  accepted  by  f&e  prelates  of  the 
United  States.  If  it  condemned  our  domestic  slavery  as  an  unlawful 
and  consequently  immoral  practice,  the  bishops  could  not  have  ac 
cepted  it,  without  being  bound  to  refuse  the  sacraments  to  all  who 
were  slaveholders,  unless  they  manumitted  their  slaves ;  yet  if  you 
look  to  the  prelates  who  accepted  the  document  unanimously,  you 
will  find  that  the  majority  of  the  Council  were  those  who  were  in 
charge  of  the  slaveholding  portion  of  the  Union.  Amongst  the  most 
pious  and  religious  of  their  flocks,  are  large  slaveholders.  The  pre 
lates  under  whose  charge  they  are,  have  never,  since  the  day  on  which 
they  accepted  this  letter,  indicated  to  them  the  necessity  of  adopting 
any  new  rule  of  conduct  respecting  their  slaves.  Nor  did  the  other 
six  prelates,  under  whose  charge  neither  slaves  nor  slaveholders  are 
found,  express  to  their  brethren  any  new  views  upon  the  subject,  be 
cause  they  all  regarded  the  letter  as  treating  of  the  slave-trade,  and 
not  as  touching  domestic  slavery."  (Let.  2,  p.  116.) 

This  seems  to  me  altogether  conclusive  upon  the  construction  pro 
perly  belonging  to  the  apostolic  letter  of  Pope  Gregory  XVI.  For 
while  there  are  expressions  in  that  document  which  an  ordinary  reader 
might  readily  construe  as  relating  to  the  Southern  institution,  especi 
ally  if  his  own  mind  was  inclined  toward  the  doctrine  of  ultra-aboli 
tionism,  yet  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  are  the  only  rightful  judges  of  their  own  laws ;  and  the  Coun 
cil  of  Baltimore,  consisting  of  all  the  prelates  in  the  Union,  and 
unanimously  agreeing  as  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  Pontiff,  with 
whom  they  held  personal  intercourse  every  three  years  in  their  offi 
cial  visits  to  Rome,  could  not  be  mistaken  in  a  matter  which  con 
cerned  their  pastoral  duty. 

But  our  author  proceeds  to  state  the  principles  of  his  Church  at 
large,  and  I  shall  set  before  you  several  other  extracts  from  his  trea 
tise,  which  are  worthy  of  attention. 

" The  abolitionists  assert,"  saith  he,  "generally,  that  slavery  is  con 
trary  to  the  natural  law.  Our  theological  authors  lay  down  the  prin 
ciple  that  man,  in  his  natural  state,  is  master  of  his  own  liberty,  and 


BISHOP  ENGLAND.  223 

may  dispose  of  it  if  he  thinks  fit,  as  in  the  case  of  a  Hebrew,  (Exod. 
21  :  5,)  who  preferred  remaining  with  his  wife  and  children,  as  a  slave, 
to  going  into  that  freedom  to  which  he  had  a  right ;  and  as  in  the  case 
of  the  Hebrew,  (Lev.  25  :  47,)  who,  by  reason  of  his  poverty,  would 
sell  himself  to  a  stranger."  (Letter  2,  p.  117-18.) 

"  The  existence  of  slavery  is  considered  by  our  theologians  to  be  as 
little  incompatible  with  the  natural  law,  as  the  existence  of  property. 
The  sole  question  will  be,  in  each  case,  whether  the  title,  on  which 
the  dominion  is  claimed,  is  valid."  (Letter  2,  p.  118.) 

Speaking  of  his  personal  experience,  Bishop  England  saith  as  fol 
lows,  viz.  : 

"  I  know  many  slaves  who  would  not  accept  their  freedom.  I  know 
some  who  have  refused  it.  And  although  our  domestic  slavery  must 
upon  the  whole  be  regarded  as  involuntary,  still  the  exceptions  are 
not  so  few  as  are  imagined  by  strangers."  (tb.  p.  118.) 

And  again,  "  It  may  be  asked,"  saith  our  author,  "  why  any  one 
should  prefer  slavery  to  freedom.  I  know  many  instances  where  the 
advantages  to  the  individual  are  very  great.  Yet  I  am  not  in  love 
with  the  existence  of  slavery,  I  would  never  aid  in  establishing  it 
where  it  did  not  exist.  But  the  situation  of  a  slave,  under  a  humane 
master,  insures  to  him  food,  raiment,  and  dwelling,  together  with  a 
variety  of  little  comforts.  It  relieves  him  from  the  apprehensions  of 
neglect  in  sickness,  from  all  solicitude  for  the  support  of  his  family, 
and  in  return,  all  that  is  required  is  fidelity  and  moderate  labor.  I 
do  not  deny  that  slavery  has  its  evils,  but  the  above  are  no  despicable 
benefits.  Hence  I  have  known  many  freedmen  who  regretted  their 
manumission."  (Ib.  p.  118.) 

This  is  strong  testimony  from  one  who  was  an  Irishman  by  birth, 
who  was  educated  amongst  a  people  to  whom  African  slavery  was 
unknown,  and  yet,  after  he  had  spent  years  in  the  midst  of  the  South 
ern  institution,  and  was  well  acquainted  with  its  practical  results, 
notwithstanding  he  still  retained  his  original  antipathy  to  it,  he  gives 
this  candid  judgment  on  its  comparative  advantages. 

Bishop  England  thus  sums  up  the  position  of  his  Church  in  another 
passage,  which  is  well  worth  transcribing,  viz. : 

"  Slavery,  then,  is  regarded  by  that  Church,  of  which  the  Pope  is 
the  presiding  officer,  not  to  be  incompatible  with  the  natural  law,  to 
be  the  result  of  sin  ~by  divine  dispensation,  to  have  been  established 
by  human  legislation,  and  when  the  dominion  of  the  slave  is  justly 


224  BISHOP  ENGLAND. 

acquired  by  the  master,  to  be  lawful,  not  only  in  the  sight  of  the  hu 
man  tribunal,  but  also  in  tJie  eye  of  Heaven.  But  not  so  the  slave- 
trade,  or  the  reducing  into  slavery  the  African  and  Indian  in  the  man 
ner  that  Portugal  and  Spain  sanctioned,  which  they  continue  still  to 
perpetuate,  and  which  the  Apostolic  letters  have  justly  censured  as 
unlawful."  (Letter  2,  p.  119.) 

With  respect  to  the  Old  Testament,  we  have  the  following  clear 
and  well-condensed  view  : 

"  The  divine  legislation  of  the  Hebrews,"  saith  our  author,  "  is 
quite  decisive." 

1.  "  A  man  disposes  of  his  own  liberty."     (Exod.   21  :  5,  Levit. 
25  :  39,  Deut.  15  :  15.) 

2.  UA   person   is    born   in   servitude."      (Exod.    21  :  4,    Levit. 
25  :  45,  46.) 

3.  "  Children  sold  by  their  parents.".    (Exod.  16:7,  Isaiah  50  :  1.) 

4.  "  Thieves,  unable  to  make  restitution."     (Exod.  22  :  3.) 

5.  "  Creditors  taking  the  debtor  and  his  children  to  pay  the  debt. 
(4  Sam.  or  2  Kings  ch.  4.)"    (To  this  our  Saviour  refers  in  His  para 
ble,  Matt.  18  :  25.) 

6.  "Purchase  recognized  throughout  as  a  good  title  to  the  service 
of  one  already  enslaved." 

7.  "Slaves  made  in  war."     (Deut.  20  :  14.) 

"  Thus,  all  the  divines  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  acknowledge 
that  they  find,  in  the  divine  legislation  for  the  Hebrew  people,  the 
recognition  of  slavery,  and  the  enactment  of  provisions  for  its  regu 
lation."  (Letter  2,  122.) 

"The  divine  legislator  of  Christianity,"  saith  Bishop  England, 
"  made  no  special  law,  either  to  repeal  or  to  modify  the  former  and 
still  subsisting  right,  but  He  enforced  principles  which  produced  an 
extensive  amelioration.  Neither  did  the  apostles  consider  the  Christ 
ian  master  obliged  to  liberate  his  Christian  servant.  St.  Paul,  in  his 
epistle  to  Philemon,  acknowledges  the  right  of  the  master  to  the  ser 
vices  of  his  slave.  Thus  a  runaway  slave  still  belonged  to  his  mas 
ter,  and  though  having  become  a  Christian,  so  far  from  being  thereby 
liberated  from  service,  he  was  bound  to  return  thereto,  and  submit 
himself  to  his  owner.  In  the  same  manner  that  St.  Paul  sent  One- 
simus,  did  the  angel  send  Hagar."  (Gen.  16  :  6-9.)  (Letter  3,  p. 
124-5.) 

Again,  saith  our  author,  "  The  legislator  of  Christianity,  while  he 


BISHOP   ENGLAND.  225 

admitted  the  legality  of  slavery,  rendered  the  master  merciful,  and 
the  slave  faithful,  obedient,  and  religious."  (Ib.  p.  127.)  "  The 
Church  which  He  commissioned  to  teach  all  nations  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  has  at  all  times  considered  the  existence  of  slaves  as  compati 
ble  with  religious  profession  and  practice."  (Ib.  p.  128.) 

"  The  principle  which  St.  Augustine  laid  down  was  that  observed, 
viz. :  The  State  was  to  enact  the  laws  regulating  slavery  ;  the  Church 
was  to  plead  for  morality,  and  exhort  to  practice  mercy."  (Ib.  p.  130.) 

"  The  right  of  the  master,  the  duty  of  the  slave,  the  lawfulness  of 
continuing  the  relation,  and  the  benevolence  of  religion  in  mitigating 
the  sufferings  of  those  held  in  bondage,  and  releasing  them  by  lawful 
means  permitted  by  the  State,  are  the  results  exhibited  by  our  view 
of  the  laws  and  facts,  during  the  first  four  centuries  of  Christianity." 
(Ib.) 

These  extracts  from  the  work  of  this  eminent  representative  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  are  abundantly  sufficient  to  establish  her 
doctrine  on  the  subject.  It  differs  in  no  respect  from  the  doctrine  of 
our  own,  as  I  have  proved  most  copiously  by  all  the  Commentators 
and  divines,  already  quoted,  up  to  the  period  when  we  find  so  strong 
a  disposition  to  depart  from  the  old  paths,  in  this  age  of  innovation. 
And  it  will  not  be  pretended  that  the  Church,  in  any  other  region  of 
the  world,  has  yet  authorized  the  change. 

For  no  man  doubts  that  the  Churches  of  the  East  still  retain  and 
practice  slavery.  The  Greek  Church,  the  Armenians,  the  Copts,  the 
Nestorians,  have  promulgated  no  new  rules  upon  the  subject.  And 
the  Church  of  Russia,  with  her  sixty  millions,  has  never  yet  varied 
from  her  views  of  the  moral  and  religious  aspect  of  the  question. 
The  late  emancipation  of  twenty  millions  of  serfs  was  purely  the  act 
of  the  State,  under  the  absolute  authority  of  the  Czar  or  Emperor, 
Alexander.  And  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Church  had 
any  thing  to  do  with  it,  beyond  the  expression  of  a  cheerful  acqui 
escence  in  the  imperial  will. 

10* 


226  MAERIAGE  OF  SLAVES. 


CHAPTER    XXVIII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  learned  and  very  thorough  work 
of  Bishop  England  did  not  come  under  my  notice,  until  I  had  col 
lected  my  own  list  of  authorities  from  the  Fathers  and  the  Councils. 
But  I  am  indebted  to  it  for  two  very  interesting  facts  on  the  import 
ant  subject  of  the  marriage  of  slaves,  which  escaped  my  attention; 
and  I  gladly  avail  myself  of  his  labors  to  record  them  here. 

"One  of  the  subjects,"  saith  our  author,  "which  at  all  times 
caused  slavery  to  be  surrounded  with  great  difficulties,  was  the  re 
sult  of  marriage.  The  interest  of  the  owner  frequently  interfered 
with  the  affection  of  the  husband  and  wife,  and  also  was  irreconcil 
able  with  the  relation  of  parent  and  child.  The  liability  to  separation 
of  those  married  was  a  more  galling  affliction  in  the  Christian  law, 
where  the  Saviour  made  marriage  indissoluble ;  and  it  often  happened 
that  an  avaricious  or  capricious  owner  cared  as  little  for  the  marriage 
bond,  as  he  did  for  the  natural  tie  of  affection.  Hence  as  Christian 
ity  became  the  religion  of  the  state,  or  of  the  great  body  of  the 
people,  it  was  imperatively  demanded,  by  the  very  nature  of  the 
case,  that  some  restraint  should  be  placed  upon  that  absolute  power 
which  the  owners  had,  and  sometimes  abused,  of  wantonly  making 
these  separations." 

"  This  was  a  strong  temptation  to  both  master  and  slave,  to  prefer 
concubinage  to  marriage.  This  is  one  of  the  worst  moral  evils  at 
tending  slavery,  where  no  restraint  of  law  effects  its  removal."  (Let. 
12,  p.  160.) 

Bishop  England  proceeds  to  state  that  a  remedy  was  provided,  to 
a  considerable  extent,  in  the  case  of  serfs,  or  colonists,  (coloni,  or 
rustici,  as  they  were  then  styled,  i.e.,  slaves  who  had  an  allotment 
of  land  to  work  for  the  benefit  of  the  master,)  an  edict  being  set 
forth  by  the  Emperor  Justinian,  in  A.D.  539,  (Novel,  clxii.  c.  3,)  of 
which  our  author  gives  the  following  translation,  viz. : 


MARRIAGE   OF  SLAVES.  227 

**  THE  EMPEROR  JUSTINIAN  AUGUSTUS  TO  LAZARUS,  THE  COUNT  OF  THE 

EAST. 

"  Preamble.  We  have  learned  by  relation  in  various  ways,  that  a 
delinquency  quite  unworthy  of  our  times  is  allowed  in  the  provinces 
of  Mesopotamia  and  of  Osdroene.  They  have  a  custom  of  having 
marriage  contracted  between  those  born  on  different  estates  ;  whence 
the  masters  endeavor  to  dissolve  marriages  actually  contracted ;  or 
to  take  away  from  the  parents  the  children  who  are  their  issue  ; 
upon  which  account  that  entire  place  is  miserably  afflicted,  whilst 
country  people,  husbands  and  wives,  are  drawn  away  from  each 
other,  and  the  children  whom  they  brought  into  light  are  taken 
away  from  them ;  and  that  there  needs  for  the  regulation  only  our 
provision." 

"  Wherefore  we  enact,  that  otherwise  the  masters  of  the  aforesaid 
keep  their  colonists  (serfs)  as  they  will ;  but  it  shall  not  be  allowed 
by  virtue  of  any  custom  heretofore  introduced  and  in  existence,  to 
put  away  from  each  other  those  who  are  married,  or  to  force  them 
to  cultivate  the  land  belonging  to  themselves,"  (that  is,  to  force  the 
serfs  to  labor  on  the  other  parts  of  their  master's  estate,  outside  of 
their  allotted  portion,)  "  or  to  take  away  children  from  their  parents, 
under  the  color  of  colonial  condition,  (serfdom.)  And  you  will  be 
careful  that  if  any  thing  of  this  sort  has  haply  been  already  done, 
the  same  be  corrected  and  restitution  made,  whether  it  be  that  child 
ren  were  taken  away  from  their  parents,  or  women  from  their 
consorts  of  marriage.  And  for  any  who  shall  in  future  act  in 
this  way,  it  shall  be  at  the  hazard  of  losing  the  estate  itself." 

"  Wherefore,  let  marriages  of  servants  be  exempt  from  that  fear 
which  has  hitherto  hung  over  them,  and  from  the  issue  of  this  order, 
let  the  parents  have  their  children.  It  shall  not  be  competent  for 
the  lords  of  the  estates  to  strive  by  any  subtle  arguments  either  to 
take  away  those  who  contract  marriage,  or  their  children."  {Letter 
12,  p.  161.) 

The  same  evil,  however,  prevailed  in  the  ninth  century,  and  our 
author  quotes  the  30th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalons,  on  the  Saone, 
in  France,  A.D.  813,  which  was  "  confirmed  by  Charlemagne,  and 
made  a  portion  of  the  law  of  the  empire,"  in  order  to  correct  it.  The 
translation  of  Bishop  England  is  as  follows,  viz.  : 

"  It  has  been  stated  to  us  that  some  persons,  by  a  sort  of  magis- 


228  MARRIAGE  OF  SLAVES. 

terial  presumption,  dissolve  the  marriages  of  slaves  ;  not  regarding 
that  evangelical  maxim,  What  God  hath  joined  together  let  man  not 
separate.  Whence  it  appears  to  us,  that  the  wedlock  of  slaves  may 
not  be  dissolved,  even  though  they  have  different  masters  ;  but  let 
them  serve  their  masters  remaining  in  one  wedlock.  And  this  is  to 
be  observed  with  regard  to  those  where  there  has  been  a  lawful  union, 
and  with  the  will  of  the  owners."  (Let.  15,  p.  ITT.) 

These  enactments  were  wise  and  salutary,  and  clearly  prove  that 
the  ancients  were  sensible  of  the  great  difficulty  to  which  slavery 
has  been  more  or  less  subject,  and  which  legislation  can  never  correct 
until  the  masters  themselves  become  earnestly  interested  in  the  mat 
ter.  For  neither  of  these  laws  took  away  the  practice  of  concubinage. 
Instead  of  this,  they  seem  rather  to  have  promoted  it,  as  the  easiest 
mode  of  avoiding  the  restraints  which  followed  a  lawful  marriage. 
Yet  it  would  seem  that  much  might  be  done,  by  judicious  legislation, 
to  strengthen  and  increase  a  sound  public  sentiment  on  this  im 
portant  matter.  And  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  clergy  will  not  cease, 
wherever  slavery  exists,  to  use  their  best  efforts  in  faror  of  a  wise 
and  thorough  reformation,  which  shall  do  away  effectually  the  most 
serious  reproach  now  brought  against  the  institution. 


POLYGAMY.  229 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  I  have  now,  I  trust,  redeemed  my 
pledge  to  establish  the  position  taken  in  my  Bible  View  of  Slavery 
against  the  modern  doctrine  of  ultra-abolitionism,  namely,  that  the 
slavery  of  the  negro  race  in  the  Southern  States  was  lawful,  not 
only  by  the  Constitution  of  our  country,  but  by  the  word  of  God 
and  the  voice  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  from  the  beginning.  Of 
course  it  resulted  that  in  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  there  was 
no  sin,  because  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law  ;  and  I  may  safely 
defy  my  learned  and  zealous  antagonist  to  point  out  any  law  of  God 
or  of  the  Church  which  forbids  or  condemns  the  institution. 

But  before  I  proceed  to  the  general  summing  up  of  my  authorities, 
there  are  some  popular  arguments  which  ought  to  be  discussed  for 
the  better  satisfaction  of  my  readers.  First,  Polygamy  ;  second, 
Man-stealing ;  and  third,  the  golden  rule  of  doing  to  others  what  we 
would  they  should  do  unto  us,  from  which  my  opponents  suppose 
that  I  ought  to  become  a  slave  if  I  vindicate  the  lawfulness  of  slavery. 
I  have  touched  on  some  of  them  already  in  iny  published  letter,  but 
I  shall  consider  them  again  rather  more  at  large. 

Beginning  with  polygamy,  my  adversaries  are  very  fond  of  con 
founding  it  with  slavery,  because  it  was  permitted  among  the  Jews. 
But  the  difference  between  the  two  is  manifest  to  any  candid  and 
fair  mind  in  these  respects,  viz.  : 

First,  that  slavery  was  the  subject  of  divine  prophecy  and  legisla 
tion,  while  no  one  pretends  that  the  Almighty  ever  declared  it  to  be 
His  will  that  a  man  should  have  more  wives  than  one.  Our  Saviour, 
speaking  of  the  general  laxity  on  the  subject  of  the  marriage  relation, 
(Matt.  19  :  8,)  expressly  saith  that  "  Moses"  (not  by  the  positive  com 
mand  of  the  Deity,  but  in  his  human  discretion)  "  suffered  it  became  of 
the  hardness  of  their  hearts,"  "  but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so." 
And  this  forever  settled  the  question.  Therefore  the  Apostles  every 
where  maintain  the  rule,  as  St.  Paul  distinctly  states  it  in  the  quali- 


230  POLYGAMY. 

fications  of  a  bishop,  that  he  shall  le  the  husband  of  one  wife. 
(1  Tim.  3:2.)  And  this  restriction  is  the  more  emphatic  when  it  is 
remembered  that  polygamy  was  allowed,  without  reprehension, 
among  the  Jews. 

Secondly,  the  voice  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  from  the  beginning, 
proclaimed  the  same  distinction,  defending  and  sustaining  slavery, 
while  polygamy  was  positively  forbidden.  This  is  distinctly  proved 
by  the  following  testimonies,  viz.  : 

"  If  any  one,"  say  the  Apostolic  Canons,  "  after  receiving  holy 
Baptism,  is  connected  with  two  wives,  or  has  a  concubine,  he  can  not 
be  a  bishop,  or  a  presbyter,  or  a  deacon,  or  in  any  way  of  the  num 
ber  of  the  priesthood."  (74) 

And  the  first  General  Council  of  Nicea,  which  consisted  of  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  bishops  from  every  part  of  the  Christian  world, 
assembled  A.D.  325,  pronounces  the  rule  to  be  of  universal  obligation. 

"  No  one,"  saith  this  Council,  "  ought  to  have  two  wives  at  the 
same  time,  nor  bring  in  another  woman  to  his  wife,  for  the  indulgence 
of  carnal  pleasure  or  appetite,  thrusting  himself  into  sin,  by  a  com 
merce  with  many,  for  the  indulgence  of  lust  instead  of  the  increase 
of  progeny,  according  to  the  order  of  God.  And  whoever  shall  act 
thus,  if  he  be  a  priest,  he  shall  be  prohibited  from  the  ministry  of 
sacrifice  and  the  communion  of  the  faithful  until  he  sends  away  the 
second  woman  from  his  house,  retaining  the  first  one.  The  same 
judgment  is  declared  concerning  the  laity."  (75) 

So  stringent  was  the  law  on  this  subject  that  St.  Augustine  con 
siders  it  binding  under  every  circumstance.  For  thus  he  writes, 
viz.  : 

"  A  man  may  desire  to  dismiss  a  wife  who  is  barren,  and  tak« 
another  by  whom  he  may  have  offspring;  yet  nevertheless  it  is  not 
lawful,  nor  can  he,  in  our  times  and  by  the  Roman  custom,  have 
more  than  one  wife  living."  (76) 

Thus,  likewise,  declares  St.  Basil,  the  great  authority  amongst  the 
Oriental  churches,  viz.  : 

"  The  Canon  condemns  bigamy,  trigamy,  and  polygamy,  a  certain 
proportion  being  observed,  viz.,  one  year's  penance  for  bigamy,  but 
others  say  two  years.  Trigamy  is  punished  by  three  years,  and 
often  by  four,  of  excommunication."  (74.)  "  The  fathers  have  said 
little  of  polygamy,  as  being  a  beastly  thing,  altogether  foreign  to 
humanity."  (75) 


POLYGAMY.  231 

Such  is  the  law  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  attempt  made  to 
get  rid  of  the  authority  which  the  Old  Testament  gives  to  slavery, 
on  account  of  the  practice  of  polygamy  amongst  the  Jews,  is  not  con 
sistent  with  sound  reason.  In  the  case  of  slavery  they  had  the 
divine  laic  to  sanction  it.  In  the  case  of  polygamy  there  was  no 
law,  and  St.  Paul  plainly  saith  :  "  Where  no  law  is,  there  is  no  trans 
gression."  (Rom.  4  :  15.)  When  my  antagonists  shall  prove  that 
it  is  the  same  thing  whether  men  act  with  law  or  without  it,  they 
may  make  something  of  this  argument,  but  not  before. 

With  respect  to  the  Church  of  Christ,  however,  the  application  of 
such  sophistry  is  still  more  absurd  and  inexcusable,  for  we  have  seen 
that  on  the  subject  of  slavery  the  Apostles,  the  fathers,  the  comment 
ators,  and  the  divines,  sustain  the  lawfulness  of  the  institution, 
although  they  nowhere  approve  of  polygamy.  Nay,  more  than  this, 
for  while  they  justify  the  one  as  the  ordinance  of  divine  Providence, 
they  decree  their  positive  prohibition  and  condemnation  of  the  other. 

It  should  be  constantly  borne  in  mind  that  the  office  which  Moses 
sustained  towards  Israel,  as  their  divinely  appointed  lawgiver,  was 
committed  to  the  inspired  Apostles  by  the  express  authority  of  tho 
Redeemer.  "  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom,"  saith  He,  "  as  my 
Father  hath  appointed  unto  me."  (Luke  22  :  29.)  "  Go  ye  there 
fore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  ;  and  lo,  I  am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Amen."  (Matt.  28  :  19,  20.) 
St.  Paul  asserts  this  same  authority  most  clearly  where  he  saith  : 
u  If  any  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him 
acknowledge  that  the  things  that  I  write  unto  you  are  the  Command 
ments  of  the  Lord"  (1  Cor.  14  :  37.)  Hence  he  delivers  his  pre 
cepts,  throughout,  as  the  inspired  organ  of  the  divine  Lawgiver,  and 
where  he  speaks  merely  of  his  own  mind  he  states  the  distinction, 
as  where  he  saith  :  "  Now  concerning  virgins  I  have  no  command 
ment  of  the  Lord,  yet  I  give  my  judgment  as  one  that  hath  obtained 
mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful."  (1  Cor.  7  :  25.)  But  whenever 
he  lays  down  his  precepts  without  this  distinction  he  exacts  entire 
submission,  under  the  penalty  of  exclusion  from  all  ecclesiastical  fel 
lowship.  For  thus  he  writes  to  the  Thessalonians  :  "  If  any  man 
obey  not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man  and  have  no  com 
pany  with  him,  that  he  may  be  ashamed."  (2  Thes.  3  :  14.) 


232  POLYGAMY. 

When,  therefore,  we  find  St.  Paul,  as  the  divinely  appointed  legis 
lator,  clearly  commanding  that  the  bishop  shall  be  "  the  husband  of 
one  wife " — (1  Tim.  3  :  2) — when  we  see  that,  throughout  all  his 
epistles,  he  speaks  of  the  wife  in  the  singular  number,  never  allud 
ing  to  the  possibility  of  Christians  having  more,  and  that  this  is  in 
strict  agreement  with  the  principle  laid  down  by  Christ  himself  when 
He  opposed  the  Jewish  practice  of  divorces,  and  said  that  Moses  had 
only  allowed  it  "  on  account  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts,"  (Matt. 
19  :  3-9,)  we  can  not  doubt  that  polygamy  was  regarded  as  inconsis 
tent  with  the  law  of'  holiness,  which  was  designed  for  the  more 
spiritual  dispensation  of  the  Gospel.  There  is,  however,  an  objection 
made  by  some,  viz.  that  the  restriction  placed  upon  the  bishop  im 
plies  a  greater  license  to  the  people.  And  the  argument  can  only  be 
sustained  by  supposing  that  the  laws  of  Christian  morality  were  to 
be  one  thing  for  the  priesthood  and  another  for  the  laity.  But  this 
is  contrary  both  to  reason  and  to  Scripture.  To  reason,  because  the 
priest  and  the  layman  are  equally  candidates  for  heaven,  into  which 
nothing  unholy  or  impure  can  be  allowed  to  enter.  And  to  Scrip 
ture,  because  St.  Peter  addresses  the  laity  in  these  words,  viz.  : 
"  Ye  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house,  an  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up 
spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ."  (1  Peter 
11  :  5.)  And  again  :  "Ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priest 
hood,  an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people."  — "  Dearly  beloved,  I  be 
seech  you,  as  strangers  and  pilgrims,  abstain  horn  fleshly  lusts  which 
war  against  the  soul."  (Ib.  ver.  9-11.)  And  again  St.  Paul  saith  : 
"  Follow  peace  with  all  men,  and  holiness,  without  which  no  man 
shall  see  the  Lord."  (Heb.  12  :  14.) 

Since  it  must  thus  be  manifest  that  holiness  is  as  much  enjoined 
on  the  people  as  on  the  priesthood,  since  the  laity  are  even  specially 
exhorted  to  flee  from  fleshly  lusts  which  war  against  the  soul,  and 
since  the  whole  Church  is  called  a  "  holy  priesthood,"  a  "  royal 
priesthood,"  a  "  holy  nation,"  it  seems  plain  that  the  restriction  laid 
down  to  the  bishop  that  he  should  be  the  husband  of  one  wife,  was 
the  law  intended  for  all.  There  is  but  one  straight  and  narrow  path 
to  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  The  clergy  are  the  leaders  in  that  path, 
but  the  people  must  follow  or  they  can  not  lead.  There  is  but  one 
saving  faith  and  one  code  of  pure  morality.  The  clergy  are  bound  to 
teach  the  world,  but  the  same  truths  which  they  are  appointed  to 
preach,  both  they  and  the  people  are  alike  bound  to  adopt,  as  the  only 
rule  of  life  and  conversation. 


POLYGAMY.  233 

Most  justly,  therefore,  did  the  Church  so  expound  the  law  laid 
down  by  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  when  the  great  Council 
of  Nicea  applied  the  restriction  of  one  wife  to  all  Christians,  without 
exception.  The  Holy  Catholic  Church,  in  which  the  Apostles'  Creed 
requires  us  to  believe,  that  is,  the  Church  Universal,  embraced  this 
rule  throughout  the  whole  extent  of  Christendom,  and  has  always 
maintained  it  to  this  day.  And  such  being  the  unanimous  voice  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  proving  her  assent  to  slavery  and  her  condem 
nation  of  polygamy,  I  can  not  sufficiently  wonder  at  the  perversity 
which  affects  to  place  them  on  the  same  foundation. 


234:  MAN-STEALING. 


CHAPTER    XXX. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  I  proceed,  next,  to  the  charge  of 
man -stealing,  which  the  ultra-abolitionist  is  so  fond  of  bringing 
against  the  Southern  institution.  And  I  know  of  nothing,  in  the 
whole  range  of  religious  or  legal  controversy,  which  is  more  unjust 
and  indefensible. 

The  argument  stands  thus,  in  the  pages  of  one  of  the  pamphlets 
which  have  honored  me  with  their  condemnation  : 

"In  the  year  1562,  Sir  John  Hawkins  set  fire  to  a  city  in  Africa  and 
carried  off  two  hundred  and  fifty  slaves.  And  the  king  of  Dahomy 
captured,  quite  lately,  a  town  in  which  he  slew  one  third  of  the 
population  and  took  the  remainder  into  captivity."  This  is  assumed 
to  be  the  mode  in  which  all  the  slaves  at  the  South  were  originally 
reduced  to  bondage  ;  and  as  their  masters  can  have  no  better  title 
than  those  who  sold  them,  therefore  they  are  all  involved  in  the  sin 
of  man-stealing ! 

Now,  really,  this  sort  of  absurdity  strikes  me  as  a  most  extraordi 
nary  example  of  sophistical  perverseness.  If  these  facts  were 
brought  forward  against  the  slave-trade,  they  might  be  deemed  appro 
priate.  But  there  we  have  no  controversy.  The  slave-trade  has 
been  abandoned  long  ago,  and  pronounced  piracy  by  the  laws  of  the 
land.  The  Southern  States  maintain  the  same  position  that  we 
occupy  with  respect  to  it.  But  what  has  that  to  do  with  their 
domestic  slavery  f  Have  they  attacked  the  African  towns,  and 
slaughtered  the  inhabitants,  and  taken  away  the  captives  ?  At  the 
time  when  this  sort  of  work  was  held  to  be  legitimate,  it  was  done  by 
Old  England ;  and  New-England  carried  on  the  trade,  while  the 
South  had  no  share  in  it,  although  they  received  the  Africans  by  fair 
purchase  from  the  persons  who  imported  them,  without  any  direct 
participation  in  the  mode  by  which  they  were  obtained.  But  you 
may  say  that  4t  the  receiver  is  as  bad  as  the  thief."  I  grant  it,  if  the 
receiver  knows  that  the  property  was  stolen.  Two  facts,  however, 


MAN-STEALING.  235 

must  be  proved  in  order  to  establish  this  offense.  For  in  the  first 
place  it  must  be  shown  that  the  property  was  stolen.  And  in  the 
second  place,  it  must  be  testified  that  the  purchaser  was  aware  of  the 
felony,  neither  of  which  can  possibly  be  established  at  this  day  with 
respect  to  the  original  stock  of  Africans  from  whom  the  Southern 
negroes  have  descended. 

No  one  can  be  farther  than  I  am  from  justifying  the  barbarity  of 
the  African  slave-trade.  But  to  deal  fairly  with  that,  as  I  suppose 
we  should  deal  fairly  with  the  worst  kinds  of  criminality,  it  should 
be  remembered  that  it  involved  two  elements,  of  which  one  was  the 
mode  in  which  the  slave-traders  obtained  the  slaves,  and  the  other 
was  the  horrid  treatment  to  which  they  were  subjected  in  what  was 
called  the  middle  passage,  or  the  voyage  from  Africa  to  the  destined 
port  of  delivery. 

With  respect  to  the  first  of  these  alone,  our  present  topic  is  con 
cerned.  We  are  told,  by  Malte  Brun,  that  in  Africa  two  thirds  of 
the  population  are  slaves,  which,  as  the  whole  is  estimated  at  ninety 
millions,  would  give  sixty  millions  for  the  present  number  of  the 
native  slaves,  independent  of  any  new  war  between  the  rulers  of  that 
heathen  continent. 

Suppose  then,  that  the  slave-traders,  applying  to  the  king  of  Daho 
mey,  were  supplied  with  their  sad  cargo  of  human  beings  from  the 
multitude  who  were  slaves  already,  could  they,  by  any  propriety  of 
speech,  be  called  men-stealers  f  By  all  that  I  have  read  upon  the 
subject,  I  presume  that  those  traders  found  the  slaves  in  the  absolute 
power  of  their  heathen  master,  and  purchased  them  for  whatever 
price  he  was  willing  to  take,  without  having  any  thing  to  do  with  the 
mode  by  which  he  came  into  possession.  And  if  they  had  inquired 
into  that  mode,  the  barbarian  despot  would  most  probably  have 
replied  that  it  was  none  of  their  business.  The  slaves  were  his,  and 
they  might  buy  them  or  let  them  alone,  just  as  they  pleased.  I  do 
not  see,  under  such  circumstances,  how  we  could  convict  the  traders 
themselves  as  having  stolen  the  slaves ;  much  less,  as  having  burned 
the  towns  and  carried  off  the  captives,  in  the  style  of  Sir  John  Haw 
kins,  or  any  other  man. 

Suppose,  again,  that  these  degraded  and  wretched  beings  were 
brought  to  Boston,  to  Bristol,  or  to  Salem,  in  the  days  when  such 
traffic  was  permitted,  and  sold  again  to  the  planters  of  the  South, 
how  were  they  to  know  that  they  were  certainly  stolen  ?  If  the  tra- 


236  MAN-STEALING. 

ders  themselves  had  no  information  of  that  fact,  how  could  they  com 
municate  it  to  the  second  purchaser?  And  by  what  process  of 
reasoning  can  it  be  shown  that  these  Southern  purchasers  had  any 
thing  to  do  with  man-stealing  ? 

But,  perfectly  plain  as  the  matter  appears  to  my  mind,  by  this 
simple  course  of  common-sense  and  justice,  I  shall  go  further,  and 
maintain,  that  even  if  the  first  slaves  imported  had  been  stolen,  and 
the  traders  knew  it  and  communicated  the  knowledge  to  the  purchas 
ers,  it  would  be  neither  lawful  nor  reasonable  to  charge  the  sin  of 
such  an  act  upon  their  heirs  and  descendants,  who  have  come  into 
possession  regularly  and  legally,  without  the  slightest  complicity  in 
the  original  wrong. 

For  look  at  the  title  by  which  you,  with  every  other  man  in  the 
community,  must  hold  the  lands  and  houses  in  your  possession.  What 
is  its  origin  ?  The  country  once  belonged  to  the  Indian  tribes,  and 
the  claim  set  up  to  it  by  England  was  based  upon  the  right  of  discov 
ery.  What  sort  of  right  is  that  ?  Does  my  discovery  of  property 
which  belongs  to  another  man  make  it  mine  ?  It  would  be  mere  ab 
surdity  to  pretend  it.  If  I  can  not  find  the  true  owner,  I  may  be 
authorized  to  keep  it ;  but  as  soon  as  he  appears  I  am  bound  to  sur 
render  it,  or  I  become  a  transgressor.  Manifestly,  therefore,  there  is 
no  law  of  natural  justice  that  authorized  Queen  Elizabeth  or  her  royal 
successors  to  confer  the  lands  of  the  Indians  on  their  subjects,  in  the 
charters  granted  by  the  crown  to  the  Virginia  colonists,  or  to  the 
Pilgrim  fathers,  as  it  is  the  fashion  to  call  them,  or  to  Lord  Baltimore, 
or  to  William  Penn.  All  this  was  taken  for  granted  by  the  European 
maxims  of  those  days,  which  assumed  the  right  of  claiming  any  land 
inhabited  by  savage  heathen  tribes,  and  calling  it  their  own ;  precisely 
in  the  same  way  that  they  assumed  the  right  of  taking  the  natives 
themselves,  and  reducing  them  to  bondage. 

Now  the  ultra-abolitionist  holds  his  property  by  the  same  title  pre 
cisely,  that  the  Southern  planter  claims  in  his  slaves.  The  way  in 
which  the  real  Indian  owners  of  the  soil  were  divested  of  it  is  stamped 
on  the  page  of  history.  It  was  done  by  force  or  fraud.  Battle  after 
battle  had  to  be  waged  against  them.  And  when  the  poor  wretches 
were  compelled  to  submit  to  the  superior  knowledge  and  arms  of  the 
invaders,  the  treaties  of  peace  by  which  they  consented  to  give  up 
their  lands  were  in  most  cases,  if  not  in  all,  the  results  of  a  dire  ne 
cessity. 


MAN-STEALING.  237 

"When  our  ultra-abolitionist  talks  about  the  negro,  he  tells  us  that 
all  men  are  brothers,  and  is  pathetically  eloquent  upon  the  Christian 
rule  of  doing  to  others  as  we  would  that  they  should  unto  us.  But 
when  his  subject  is  the  Indian,  he  has  no  idea  that  the  rule  is  applic 
able.  Then  it  was  all  right  that  the  strong  hand  should  take  posses 
sion  of  their  property,  drive  them  away  from  their  homes  and  the 
burial-places  of  their  fathers,  and  gradually  exterminate  the  savage 
race,  if  they  stood  in  the  way  of  advancing  civilization. 

The  effects  of  these  operations,  however,  on  the  Indian  and  the 
negro,  have  been  widely  different ;  though  justice  and  humanity  can 
say  very  little  in  favor  of  their  commencements.  The  Indians  have 
been  left  to  their  barbarism,  without  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  gov 
ernment  to  convert  or  civilize  them.  The  Africans,  on  the  contrary, 
have  been  elevated  from  the  most  degraded  state,  far  more  degraded 
than  that  of  the  Indians,  and  changed  from  heathen  savages  into 
Christian  men.  The  Indians  have  been  diminished  in  number  until 
they  have  become  a  mere  remnant,  and  the  whole  will  probably  disap 
pear  in  a  few  generations  more;  while  the  Africans  have  multiplied  in 
eighty  years  from  seven  hundred  thousand  to  four  millions.  The  In 
dians  are  wronged,  dissatisfied,  unhappy,  and  hostile.  The  Africans 
are  contented,  affectionate,  and  attached  to  their  masters.  The  pros 
pect  open  to  the  Indian  is  dark  and  gloomy,  with  nothing  to  cheer 
or  console  him.  The  prospect  of  the  African  is  bright  and  hopeful, 
for  a  portion  of  his  race  have  been  enabled  to  plant  Liberia,  and  he 
can  turn  his  eyes  to  the  sunny  land  of  his  forefathers  with  a  reason 
able  expectation  that  he  or  his  children  may  rise,  in  time,  to  a  fair 
condition  amongst  the  citizens  of  a  civilifced  community.  So  marked, 
indeed,  is  the  contrast  between  the  practical  working  of  the  event  in 
the  cases  of  these  two  savage  races,  that  no  reflecting  mind  can  con 
template  them  without  surprise.  Can  any  Christian  believer  in  the 
providence  of  God  fail  to  see  that  a  blessing  to  the  African  has  fol 
lowed  in  the  train  of  Southern  slavery,  while  a  blight  has  rested  on 
the  system  adopted  for  the  Indian  ?  Is  it  possible  to  doubt  that  if 
the  Indians  could  have  been  successfully  subjected  to  the  white  man, 
it  would  have  been  infinitely  better  for  them  at  the  present  day  ? 

But  it  is  unnecessary  to  pursue  this  train  of  reflection  any  farther. 
My  object  in  adverting  to  it  is  only  to  show  that  the  original  violence, 
fraud,  and  injustice  by  which  the  Indians  were  dispossessed,  have 
nothing  to  do  with  the  title  of  those  whanow  claim  what  was  once 


238  MAN-STEALING. 

their  property.  It  would  be  an  absurdity  for  any  man  to  ask  that 
our  citizens  should  surrender  their  farms  and  their  city  lots  to  some 
Indian  tribe,  because  the  land  was  originally  torn  from  the  lawful 
owners.  The  past  can  not  be  recalled,  nor  do  the  evil  acts  of  other 
days  admit  of  any  remedy.  It  is  enough  that  each  man  has  now  a 
vali£  title,  transmitted  from  the  first  settlers,  or  under  a  patent  from 
the  established  government  in  each  State.  What  would  you  think 
of  an  attempt  to  invalidate  this,  on  the  ground  that  the  tract  in  ques 
tion  was  originally  the  seat  of  an  Indian  village,  that  the  white  men 
attacked  it,  burned  the  huts,  killed  many  of  the  savages,  drove  off 
the  rest,  and  seized  the  land  as  their  own ;  and  that  property  thus 
acquired  by  robbery  and  murder  could  not  be  lawfully  held  by  those 
who  derived  it  from  such  a  bloody  and  cruel  invasion  of  natural  right 
and  justice?  Have  you  any  doubt  that  the  lawyer  who  should  try 
to  nullify  a  regular  conveyance,  by  a  plea  like  this,  would  be  laughed 
at  for  his  folly  ?  Yet  such  is  precisely  the  course  of  the  abolitionist, 
who  persuades  himself  that  because  the  Africans  were  originally 
seized  by  violence,  and  enslaved  by  the  strong  hand,  therefore  the 
present  owners  of  the  Southern  slaves  have  no  valid  title ;  although 
they  hold  it  by  transmission  or  regular  purchase  under  the  same 
established  law  of  their  country. 

On  this  point,  therefore,  though  it  be  such  a  favorite  with  most  of 
my  antagonists,  their  agument  is  simply  ridiculous.  The  title  now  held 
to  the  greater  part  of  the  landed  property  in  these  United  States  rests 
on  the  same  foundation  with  that  of  the  Southern  slaveholder.  Penn 
sylvania,  indeed,  under  the  pacific  policy  of  William  Penn,  may  have 
been  an  exception,  so  far  as  force  was  concerned.  Whether  it  was  an 
exception  with  respect  to  the  skill  manifested  in  cheating  the  simplicity 
of  the  Indian,  would  be  a  different  question.  We  read,  for  example, 
of  a  bargain  in  which  an  Indian  agreed  with  a  worthy  Quaker  to 
take  a  handful  of  glass  beads  for  as  much  land  as  an  ox-hide  would 
cover.  But  the  wily  Friend  cut  the  hide -into  strips  as  narrow  as 
ten  to  the  inch,  and  laying  these  end  to  end  upon  the  ground,  sur 
rounded  a  comfortable  lot  of  almost  four  acres.  The  poor  Indian 
attempted  to  remonstrate  against  a  construction  of  the  contract  so 
very  different  from  the  natural  meaning  of  the  terms  employed.  But 
it  was  in  vain.  Yet  no  jury  of  honest  men  would  hesitate  to  condemn 
such  a  trick,  as  a  fraudulent  imposition. 

I  do  not  vouch  for  the  truth  of  this  small  specimen.     Nor  is  it  of 


MAN-STEALING.  239 

any  importance.  For  no  reasonable  man  has  any  doubt  that  the 
superior  sagacity  and  power  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  were  fully  exer 
cised  in  every  practicable  way,  to  despoil  the  poor  savages  of  their 
rights  in  the  soil,  throughout  the  whole  extent  of  our  vast  territory. 
And  this  is  enough  to  prove  that  even  if  the  first  Southern  purchasers 
of  the  Africans  could  be  charged  with  the  sin  of  man-stealing,  they 
would  be  in  no  worse  condition  than  the  first  settlers,  who  robbed 
the  Indians  of  their  land  and  exterminated  the  owners  without  pity 
or  compunction.  I  have  shown,  however,  that  there  is  no  testimony 
which  can  bring  home  this  accusation  against  the  Southern  pur 
chasers  of  the  imported  negroes ;  while  the  whole  strain  of  history 
establishes  the  charge  with  respect  to  the  Indians.  And,  therefore, 
notwithstanding  the  zeal  of  the  ultra-abolitionist  in  urging  this  popu 
lar  argument,  it  must  be  perfectly  manifest  that  the  title  of  the  pre 
sent  generation  to  their  property  in  the  slaves  is  even  less  liable  to 
impeachment  on  this  score,  than  the  title  to  the  soil  itself,  on  a  fair 
comparison. 


240  THE  GOLDEN  KULE. 


CHAPTER    XXXI. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  next  ground  of  accusation,  and  one 
which  the  eloquent  declaimers  against  Southern  slavery  find  most 
convincing  with  the  multitude,  is  derived  from  their  management  of 
the  "  Golden  Rule,"  as  it  is  often  called,  laid  down  by  our  Saviour, 
namely,  "  Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye 
even  so  to  them,  for  this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets."  (Matt.  7 :  12.) 
I  have  touched  briefly  on  this  topic  in  my  Bible  View  of  Slavery, 
but  it  deserves  a  more  extended  examination.  Before  I  enter  upon 
it,  however,  I  must  call  your  attention  to  the  important  fact  that  it 
was  no  new  rule  of  Christian  practice.  Our  divine  Redeemer  ex 
pressly  saith,  "  This  is  the  law  and  the  prophets,"  plainly  referring  to 
the  existing  system  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  in  which  the  slavery  of 
the  heathen  races  was  sanctioned  by  the  Word  of  God.  And  this  of 
itself  should  be  enough  to  satisfy  any  candid  mind  that  the  "  Golden 
Rule,"  properly  understood,  could  not  have  been  intended  to  interfere 
with  the  institution. 

But  in  examining  the  true  meaning  of  this  law,  it  is  evident  that  a 
qualification  is  necessary ;  and  this  is  usually  expressed  by  under 
standing  the  circumstances  of  the  parties  to  be  taken  into  considera 
tion.  Thus,  for  example,  the  master  of  the  negro  can  have  no  doubt 
that  if  he  were  in  the  condition  of  a  slave  he  would  desire  to  be  free, 
and  therefore,  according  to  the  "  Golden  Rule,"  he  is  bound  to  eman 
cipate  his  bondman.  This  is  the  view  which  suits  the  ultra-abolition 
ist  exactly ;  and  it  must  be  admitted  that  it  is,  at  first  sight,  suffi 
ciently  plausible  to  convince  the  ordinary  understanding,  when  there 
is  no  motive  of  personal  interest  on  the  other  side  of  the  question. 
To  test  its  truth,  however,  let  us  examine  how  it  would  apply  to  the 
other  relations  of  civilized  society. 

Take  the  case  of  a  wealthy  father,  whose  favorite  daughter  has 
fixed  her  affections  on  some  worthless  rake,  gifted  with  a  handsome 
person  and  a  flattering  tongue,  but  utterly  destitute  of  the  qualities 
necessary  to  secure  her  safety  or  her  comfort  in  the  married  relation. 


THE   GOLDEN  RULE.  241 

Pie  knows  that  if  he  were  in  her  place,  he  would  desire  beyond  all 
things  the  gratification  of  her  wishes,  and  the  "  Golden  Rule"  is  ap 
pealed  to,  as  his  law  of  duty.  Is  it,  indeed,  his  law  of  duty  ?  Not 
at  all.  On  the  contrary,  having  a  far  clearer  view  than  she  can 
form  of  what  is  best  for  her  own  happiness,  he  firmly  refuses  her 
passionate  praye'r,  turns  the  unprincipled  fortune-hunter  from  his 
doors,  and  thus  proves  himself  the  real  guardian  of  his  daughter's 
welfare. 

Take  the  case  of  the  judge  or  the  juryman,  sitting  on  the  trial  of 
some  unhappy  culprit  at  the  bar  of  justice.  They  know  perfectly 
well,  that  if  they  were  in  the  place  of  the  prisoner,  it  would  be  their 
heart's  desire  that  the  judge  would  be  favorable  in  his  charge,  and 
the  jury  favorable  in  their  verdict.  And  the  "  Golden  Rule"  is  again 
brought  forward.  Has  it  any  proper  application  ?  None  whatever. 
The  judge  and  the  jury  are  bound  to  act  according  to  the  law  and 
the  testimony,  without  any  regard  to  the  wishes  of  the  prisoner.  For 
if  these  were  to  be  taken  for  their  rule,  society  would  be  unhinged, 
and  justice  would  become  an  empty  name,  signifying  nothing. 

Take  the  case  of  a  fashionable  and  extravagant  wife,  who  is  earn 
estly  bent  upon  a  lavish  display  in  dress,  furniture,  and  parties  of 
pleasure,  which  her  husband  knows  to  be  quite  unsuited  to  his  cir 
cumstances.  He  understands  her  feelings  perfectly  well,  and  has  no 
doubt  that  if  lie  were  in  her  place,  he  would  desire  to  be  indulged 
with  all  the  money  required  for  her  gratification.  But  does  the 
"  Golden  Rule"  demand  his  compliance  with  her  solicitations  ?  By 
no  means.  It  is  his  duty  to  restrain  her  foolish  vanity  and  pride, 
to  deny  her  wishes,  nay,  to  countermand  her  orders  if  necessary, 
notwithstanding  it  may  produce  no  small  amount  of  reproach  and 
mortification ;  since  otherwise,  the  result  would  probably  be  that, 
in  a  little  while,  he  might  become  a  bankrupt,  without  house  or 
home. 

Or,  take  the  common  case  of  the  poor  beggar,  who  once  enjoyed 
the  sunshine  of  prosperity,  but  now  stands  at  your  door,  asking  for 
aid  to  relieve  his  destitution.  He  sees  your  tasteful  dwelling,  filled 
with  the  best  products  of  art  and  the  appliances  of  modern  refine 
ment  and  luxury.  He  compares  his  lot  with  yours,  and  is  tempted 
to  upbraid  the  partial  Providence  which  has  placed  so  vast  a  dif 
ference  between  the  conditions  of  men,  notwithstanding  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  has  pronounced  that  they  are  all  created  "  FKEE 
11 


242  THE   GOLDEN  EULE. 

AND  EQUAL."  You  give  him,  perhaps,  a  meal  in  your  kitchen,  and 
even  add  to  it  a  small  sum  in  money.  But  you  mark  his  eye,  as  it 
gazes  on  the  opulence  around  him  ;  and  you  have  no  doubt  that  if 
you  were  in  Ids  place,  you  would  desire  to  have  a  fair  partition  of 
the  whole.  Does  the  "Golden  Rule"  convince  you  that  you  ought  to 
make  him  a  sharer  in  your  prosperity  ?  You  would  as  soon  think  of 
committing  suicide.  On  the  contrary,  you  feel  quite  satisfied  that 
you  have  already  displayed  a  commendable  amount  of  Christian 
charity ;  and  sit  down  at  your  well-covered  board,  without  the  slight 
est  idea  that  you  have  violated  one  of  the  most  comprehensive  pre 
cepts  of  your  divine  Master. 

An  abundance  of  cases  might  be  thus  adduced,  proving,  beyond 
the  possibility  of  doubt,  that  the  "  Golden  Rule"  must  be  qualified  by 
another  restriction :  "  Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to 
you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them,"  provided  it  ~be  just  and  reasonable. 
And  as  this  restriction  is  really  understood  and  acted  upon,  in  all 
the  other  relations  of  life,  it  is  certainly  fair  that  it  should  be  equally 
applicable  to  the  relation  of  slavery. 

When,  therefore,  the  master  is  required  to  manumit  his  slave,  on 
the  ground,  that  if  he  were  in  the  condition  of  the  slave,  he  would 
desire  to  be  free,  and  that,  consequently,  according  to  the  "  Golden 
Rule,"  he  is  obliged  to  give  liberty  to  his  bond-servant,  we  are  as 
suredly  obliged  to  apply  the  precept  on  the  same  principles.  For, 
in  no  other  way  can  we  escape  the  reproach  which  our  Lord  adminis 
tered  to  the  Pharisees  :  "  They  bind  heavy  burdens  and  grievous  to 
be  borne,  and  lay  them  on  men's  shoulders  ;  but  they  themselves  will 
not  move  them  with  one  of  their  fingers"  (Matt.  23  :  4.)  In  such  a 
case,  the  master  is  really  under  no  more  obligation  than  all  other 
men ;  which  is,  as  we  have  shown,  to  obey  the  precept  when  it  de 
mands  nothing  but  what  is  just  and  reasonable.  And  as,  in  every 
other  instance,  he  is  compelled  to  judge  what  would  be  just  and 
reasonable,  so  it  is  in  this,  that  he  must  reflect  whether  the  grant  of 
freedom  would  be  an  advantage  to  the  slave,  and  compatible  with 
the  paramount  duty  which  he  owes  to  his  own  family,  and  the  com 
munity  around  him. 

If,  therefore,  he  believes  that  the  slave  is  not  fit  for  freedom — if  he 
knows,  by  experience,  that  in  the  majority  of  instances,  the  free  ne 
groes  have  proved  to  be  made  worse  and  more  miserable  by  their 
liberty  than  they  were  before — he  would  be  not  only  authorized  but 


THE   GOLDEN  RULE.  243 

obliged,  by  the  true  rule  of  duty,  to  deny  the  request,  on  the  same 
principle  which  compels  the  father  to  refuse  indulgence  to  the  child, 
when  his  compliance  would  only  work  mischief  to  the  object  of  his 
affection. 

Or  if  the  master  thinks  that  there  is  no  reason  for  granting  this 
supposed  privilege  to  one  slave,  more  than  to  many  others,  while  the 
extension  of  it  would  be  ruin  to  himself  and  his  family,  justice 
to  them  would  make  it  his  duty  to  refuse. 

Or  if,  living  in  a  slave  State,  to  whose  laws  and  customs  he  is 
bound  as  a  faithful  citizen,  he  knows  that  the  indiscriminate  eman 
cipation  of  his  slaves  would  spread  discontent  amongst  the  servants 
of  his  neighbors,  and  produce  an  excitement  likely  to  cause  serious 
trouble  and  perhaps  dange'r  to  the  public  peace, — in  such  case,  even 
if  his  circumstances  could  bear  the  loss  of  his  property,  he  would 
be  justified  in  refusing  to  emancipate,  lest,  in  yielding  to  the  dictates 
of  his  private  feelings,  he  should  violate  the  higher  duty  which  he 
owes  to  the  general  good  of  the  community. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  "  Golden  Rule,"  fairly  interpreted,  would  only 
effect  the  freedom  of  the  slave  in  those  cases  where  the  master  was 
persuaded  that  it  was  just  and  reasonable.  And  in  all  such  cases, 
the  Southern  slaveholders  have  pursued  it,  as  I  believe,  with  a  liberal 
kindness,  which  has  not  always  worked  happily  even  to  the  slaves 
themselves ;  though  I  rejoice  to  think  that  in  many  instances  it  has 
been  wisely  applied,  especially  when  it  has  been  connected  with  the 
noble  enterprise,  planned  and  executed  by  themselves,  of  planting 
the  colony  of  Liberia.  If  the  tenth  part  as  much  had  ever  been  done 
for  the  negro  race,  by  the  leaders  of  ultra-abolitionism,  I  should  have 
a  far  higher  respect  for  the  character  of  their  philanthropy. 


244  SLAVERY  OF  FKEEMEN. 


CHAPTER    XXXII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Some  of  the  profound  theologians  who 
have  honored  my  humble  pamphlet  with  so  many  rebukes,  are  ap 
parently  convinced,  that  in  order  to  be  consistent  with  my  argu 
ment,  I  should  be  myself  a  slave.-  And,  notwithstanding  the  puerile 
folly  of  the  intended  sarcasm,  it  may  be  as  well  to  devote  a  short 
chapter  to  its  consideration. 

I  have  called  it  a  puerile  folly,  because  it  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  question ;  and  only  reminds  one  of  the  style  in  which  children  in  a 
passion  reproach  their  best  friends,  when  they  happen  to  offend  them. 
But  the  question  in  dispute  has  no  relation  to  the  propriety  of  mak 
ing  slaves  of  freemen.  On  the  contrary,  the  only  point  at  issue  is 
upon  the  religious  duty  of  making  freemen  of  slaves.  The  negro 
race  at  the  South  have  never  been  free,  so  far  as  we  have  any  know 
ledge.  Their  ancestors  were  slaves  in  Africa,  and  the  millions  of 
their  posterity  now  in  bondage,  were  born  and  bred  in  the  same 
condition,  only  elevated,  to  a  vast  extent,  by  their  intercourse  with 
the  white  race,  and  the  influence  of  the  Gospel.  The  question  wheth 
er  it  is  best  for  the  true  interests  of  both  races  that  they  should 
continue  as  they  are,  until  the  wisdom  of  Providence  opens  the  way 
for  the  gradual  abolition  of  slavery  and  the  extradition  of  the  negroes 
to  their  parent  soil  of  Africa,  on  the  one  hand ;  or  whether,  on  the 
other,  the  United  States  should  be  drenched  in  blood,  in  the  wild 
hope  of  forcing  their  immediate  emancipation,  and  raising  them  to  a 
perfect  equality  with  their  former  masters  on  their  own  soil — this, 
indeed,  is  a  question  of  tremendous  magnitude.  But  what  it  has  to 
do  with  the  suggestion  that  I  should  become  a  slave,  who  have  been 
born  and  bred  a  freeman,  is  quite  too  deep  for  my  poor  understand 
ing. 

Yet  nevertheless,  as  the  proverb  declares  that  it  is  sometimes  expe 
dient  to  answer  even  "a  fool  according  to  his  folly,"  I  shall  first 
remind  these  gentlemen  that  I  am,  in  the  highest  sense,  a  slave 
already,  and  my  master  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  "  Ye  are  bought 


PERSONAL    FITNESS.  245 

-X 

with  a  price,"  saith  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  "  therefore  glorify 
God  in  your  body  and  in  your  spirit,  which  are  God's."  (1  Cor. 
6  :  20.)  And  again  saith  the  same  Apostle :  "  He  that  is  called  in 
the  Lord,  being  a  slave,  is  the  Lord's  freeman ;  likewise  also,  he 
that  is  called,  being  free,  is  Christ's  slave."  (1  Cor.  7  :  21.)  And 
devoutly  do  I  thank  Him,  who  has  thus  purchased  my  redemption 
with  His  own  precious  blood,  and  saved  me  from  being  a  slave  to 
the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil,  and  brought  me  into  His  own 
family — the  Church — to  serve  Him  forever ! 

If  that  divine  and  sovereign  Lord  had  so  determined  in  His  wise, 
though  often  mysterious  providence,  that  I  should  also  be  the  slave 
of  a  Southern  master,  I  trust  that  He  would  have  given  me  grace  to 
bear  it  with  a  spirit  of  cheerful  obedience  to  His  will.  In  that  case, 
however,  he  would  have  fitted  me  for  my  condition.  I  should  have 
been  born  of  the  negro  race,  bred  up  in  bondage,  surrounded  by  the 
associations  best  adapted  to  my  lot,  accustomed  to  its  necessary  toils, 
and  willing  to  take  my  part  in  its  simple  recreations,  while,  under 
the  care  of  a  kind  and  Christian  master,  I  should  have  learned  to 
congratulate  myself  on  the  security  from  want,  the  certainty  of  a 
home,  and  food  and  clothing,  nursing  in  sickness,  benevolent  regard 
in  old  age,  and  perfect  freedom  from  the  fear  of  being  abandoned, 
when  my  strength  should  fail,  to  the  "  tender  mercies  "  of  the  poor- 
house.  And  I  should  have  had,  perhaps  as  fully  as  I  now  have,  the 
blessed  assurance,  that  in  the  sight  of  God,  through  the  redemption 
of  Christ  Jesus,  I  was  His  slave  yet  more  than  my  earthly  master's, 
that  this  slavery  was  the  only  perfect  freedom,  that  my  human  bond 
age  would  be  ended  in  due  time,  and  that  I  should  then  be  released, 
at  His  Almighty  Word,  to  be  one  amongst  the  spirits  of  the  just  and 
the  society  of  angels,  in  His  glorious  and  celestial  kingdom. 

But  the  Lord  has  not  so  ordered  my  condition,  and  therefore  I  am 
not  a  fit  subject  for  Southern  slavery.  He.  has  chosen  to  place  me 
in  a  different  sphere — a  much  higher  sphere  in  the  estimation  of  man 
kind,  although  it  is  possible  that  many  a  Christian  slave  may  be 
exalted  far  above  me,  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  My  faith  teaches 
me  that  these  earthly  differences  in  the  conditions  of  men  are  the 
work  of  His  providence.  "  He  setteth  up  one,  and  putteth  down 
another."  He  u  divideth. severally  to  every  man  as  He  will,"  and  no 
one  is  authorized  to  say  unto  Him,  What  doest  thou  ?  For,  in  the 
language  of  the  Apostle,  "Who  art  thou  that  repliest  against  God? 


246  PERSONAL    FITNESS. 

Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  Him  that  formed  it,  Why  hast  thou 
made  me  thus  ?  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay  of  the 
same  lump,  to  make  one  vessel  unto  honor,  and  another  to  dishonor  ?" 
(Rom.  9  :  20-1.)  These  distinctions,  therefore,  are  all  ordered  by  the 
divine  Master.  And  if  my  condition  in  life  is  a  subject  of  thankful 
ness,  because  it  is  exempt  from  the  humiliation  of  a  slave,  I  have 
none  the  less  reason  to  fear  the  final  result,  if  I  fail  to  discharge  the 
far  more  difficult  duties  which  devolve  upon  the  freeman. 

My  objections  to  being  a  slave,  however,  might  be  extended  much 
further.  I  should  be  unwilling  to  be  a  blacksmith,  a  tailor,  a  shoe 
maker,  a  hatter,  a  sailor,  or  a  soldier.  Nay,  I  should  be  unwilling 
to  be  a  politician  or  a  statesman.  And  why  ?  Precisely  for  the 
same  reason.  I  am  not  fitted  for  any  of  them.  It  is  not  because  I 
lack  respect  for  these  various  conditions.  On  the  contrary,  I  honor 
them  all,  as  necessary  and  laudable  parts  of  the  vast  system  of  soci 
ety  which  composes  the  nation.  But  I  am  only  qualified  for  the  con 
dition  in  which  it  has  pleased  God  to  place  me.  And  probably  you 
may  think  me  not  very  well  qualified  for  that.  If  so,  there  is  one 
point,  at  least,  in  which  we  shall  not  differ. 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  fundamental  principle  which  determines 
the  fitness  of  men  for  their  respective  stations  in  the  community, 
namely,  the  power  of  habit.  A  certain  measure  of  capacity  must  of 
course  be  taken  for  granted,  for  without  it,  no  habit  could  be  formed. 
But  beyond  that,  all  the  rest  is  dependent  on  the  repetition  of  the 
same  round  of  study,  of  labor,  and  of  duty,  which,  by  degrees,  moulds 
the  whole  mind,  desires,  and  actions  of  the  individual  into  the  form 
adapted  to  his  circumstances.  -And  this,  for  the  most  part,  requires 
many  years,  before  the  result  can  be  accomplished.  I  speak  of  the 
general  rule,  to  which  wo  all  know  that  there  are  occasional  excep 
tions.  Still,  with  respect  to  the  great  bulk  of  mankind,  nothing  is 
more  true  than  the  fact,  that  habit  alone  can  fit  them  fully  for  their 
specific  situations.  And  when  that  habit  is  completely  established, 
all  experience  proves  how  dangerous  it  is  to  make  any  serious  change. 
The  character  of  thought  once  fixed,  the  circle  of  knowledge  once 
filled,  the  routine  of  occupation  once  settled,  it  is  rarely  possible  for 
the  individual  to  succeed  in  any  new  and  strange  relation  to  society. 
And  the  attempt  to  accomplish  any  sudden  revolution  in  the  estab 
lished  course  of  life,  seldom  fails  to  injure  the  powers  both  of  the 
mind  and  of  the  body. 


FORCE  OF  HABIT.  247 

But  if  this  be  true  in  the  case  of  the  individual,  much  more  must 
it  be  true  in  the  case  of  nations.  All  history  proves  that  changes  in 
the  fixed  habits  of  whole  communities  can  never  be  effected  wisely 
or  well,  except  it  be  done  gradually  and  slowly,  by  the  insensible 
progress  of  feeling  and  education  amongst  the  people  themselves.  For 
habit  has  been  justly  termed  our  second  nature,  in  most  cases  stronger 
than  the  first.  Hence  the  wrell-known  difficulty  of  overcoming  old 
habits  in  the  individual.  Hence  the  vastly  greater  difficulty  of  eradi 
cating  the  old  habits  of  society  at  large.  And  hence  the  perilous 
character  which  marks  the  wild  theory  of  ultra-abolitionists.  That 
the  Southern  States  can  be  revolutionized  in  their  social  habits  by  a 
single  stroke  of  power — that  the  relations  of  master  and  slave,  fixed 
firmly  by  the  habits  of  generations,  can  be  suddenly  torn  asunder — 
that  millions  of  slaves  can  be  safely  set  free  before  they  are  fitted  for 
freedom — that  millions  of  the  governing  race  can  be  forcibly  reduced 
to  an  equality  with  those  who  were  so  lately  their  servants,  and  the 
whole  condition  of  the  community  totally  subverted  and  thrown  into 
confusion,  without  any  of  the  wise  guards  and  careful  preparation 
which  so  vast  a  change  requires — such  a  scheme  as  this  appears  to 
be  so  contrary  to  every  dictate  of  experience,  every  lesson  of  history, 
every  law  of  justice,  and  every  rule  of  common-sense  and  reason, 
that  its  acceptance  on  the  part  of  so  many  enlightened  minds  can 
only  be  accounted  for  as  a  sort  of  monomania  on  the  part  of  its 
zealous  originators,  while  the  crowd  of  their  followers  have  never 
taken  the  trouble  to  examine  for  themselves,  seriously  and  calmly, 
the  real  merits  of  the  question. 

I  have  already  said,  and  have  frequently  published  my  own  hope 
and  persuasion,  that  the  time  will  come  for  the  total  abolition  of 
slavery.  But  when  it  comes,  it  will  not  be  by  the  insane  projects  of 
politicians,  through  blood  and  desolation.  The  Supreme  Ruler  of 
nations,  in  whose  hand  are  the  hearts  of  men,  will  incline  the  minds 
of  the  South,  when  He  sees  it  to  be  right,  to  institute  and  carry  on 
the  process,  in  the  only  safe  and  effectual  way,  which  has  been  pur 
sued  by  the  other  States  in  relation  to  it.  Since  the  world  began, 
slavery  has  never  been  abolished  by  external  force  and  violence.  It 
has  only  been  done  away  by  internal  action  on  the  part  of  those 
wrho  are  directly  concerned.  Of  this  we  have  two  very  different 
examples.  The  first  was  that  of  St.  Domingo,  where  the  slaves, 
excited  by  the  pestilent  orators  of  the  French  Revolution,  rose 


248  MODES  OF  ABOLITION. 

against  their  masters,  and  attained  their  horrid  triumph  by  the 
most'  savage  butchery  which  history  has  recorded.  The  other 
was  the  abolition  movement  of  England,  where  the  result  was 
regularly  effected  by  the  peaceful  action  of  Parliament,  after  the 
discussion  of  more  than  twenty  years,  with  compensation  to  the 
masters,  and  the  restraints  of  apprenticeship  upon  the  slaves,  in 
order  to  avoid  the  dangers  anticipated  from  a  sudden  and  complete 
change.  Yet  neither  of  these  examples  suits  our  ultra-abolitionists. 
They  are  philanthropists,  and  of  course  would  not  desire  that  the 
South  should  suffer  under  a  bloody  and  inhuman  massacre,  like  that 
of  St.  Domingo.  But  they  have  quite  as  little  inclination  to  imitate 
the  course  of  England,  because  they  are  determined  to  condemn  slave- 
holding  as  a  sin,  and  they  could  not  be  partakers  in  the  sin,  by  pay 
ing  the  masters  for  their  slaves,  for  that  would  be  acknowledging 
that  they  had  a  right  to  hold  them.  Moreover,  such  payment  would 
be  rather  costly,  and  therefore  their  view  is  not  only  philanthropic, 
but  withal  it  is  economical — and  economy  is  a  virtue !  Hence,  accord 
ing  to  their  theory,  the  emancipation  of  four  millions  of  slaves  must 
be  accomplished  on  a  new  principle,  which  they  have  the  sole  merit 
of  inventing.  It  is  not  in  the  Bible.  It  is  not  in  history.  It  is  not 
injustice,  nor  in  reason,  nor  in  common-sense.  But  they  cling  to  it, 
like  a  fond  mother  to  a  deformed  bantling,  because  it  is  their  own  ; 
and  argument,  and  authority,  and  experience,  though  sustained  by 
the  Scriptures  and  the  unanimous  voice  of  all  Christendom,  fail  to 
convince  them  of  their  gross  delusion. 

The  results,  however,  of  these  two  cases  in  history,  namely,  that 
of  St.  Domingo,  and  the  more  recent  one  of  England,  may  aid  the 
intelligent  reader,  who  is  not  infected  by  the  mania  of  ultra-abolition 
ism,  to  understand  the  practical  aspects  of  the  question,  and  to  them 
I  shall  proceed  in  the  next  chapter. 


ST.   DOMINGO.  249 


CHAPTER  XXXIII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  As  philanthropy  is  the  acknowledged 
motive  of  the  ultra-abolitionist,  and  he  holds  it  to  be  self-evident  that 
the  deliverance  of  the  African  race  from  slavery  is  the  one  thing  need 
ful  to  raise  them  to  an  equality  with  the  best  and  most  favored  por 
tions  of  mankind,  it  is  fair  to  inquire  how  the  experiment  has  suc 
ceeded  in  the  case  of  St.  Domingo,  which  has  been,  for  two  genera 
tions,  entirely  under  negro  domination. 

On  this  subject,  we  have  had  conflicting  statements,  on  none  of 
which  reliance  c^n  be  placed,  because  the  writers  were  so  largely  in 
fluenced  by  their  particular  prejudices.  But  I  shall  set  the  matter 
before  you  in  the  words  of  the  eminent  Alison,  whose  "  History  of 
Europe"  is  one  of  the  most  trustworthy  productions  of  modern  litera 
ture,  and  who,  as  a  native  of  Scotland,  surrounded  by  English  sym 
pathies,  and  naturally  inclined  to  favor  abolition,  is  altogether  un 
likely  to  fall  into  any  error  on  the  Southern  side  of  the  question. 

"  St.  Domingo,"  saith  this  distinguished  historian,  "  the  greatest 
except  Cuba,  and,  beyond  all  question,  the  most  flourishing  of  the 
West-India  Islands  before  the  Revolution,  is  about  three  hundred 
miles  long,  and  its  average  breadth  about  ninety  miles.  The  Spaniards 
possessed  two  thirds,  and  the  French  the  remainder.  In  the  French 
portion,  the  inhabitants  consisted  of  about  forty  thousand  whites, 
sixty  thousand  mulattoes,  and  five  hundred  thousand  negro  slaves. 
This  French  colony  was  immensely  productive,  exceeding  all  the 
British  islands  together.  Its  exports,  including  the  Spanish  portion, 
were  £18,400,000,  and  its  imports  £10,000,000  sterling.  Eighteen 
hundred  vessels  and  27,000  sailors  were  employed  in  conducting  the 
vast  colonial  traffic.  It  was  this  splendid  and  unequaled  colonial 
possession  which  the  French  nation  threw  away  and  destroyed  at  the 
commencement  of  the  revolution,  with  a  recklessness  and  improvi 
dence  of  which  the  previous  history  of  the  world  had  afforded  no 
example." 

11* 


250  ST.    DOMINGO. 

"  Hardly  had  the  cry  of  liberty  and  equality  been  raised  in  France," 
continues  our  historian,  "  when  it  responded  warmly  and  vehemently 
from  the  shores  of  St.  Domingo.  The  slave  population  were  rapidly 
assailed  by  revolutionary  agents  and  emissaries,  and  the  workshops 
and  fields  of  the  planters  overrun  by  heated  missionaries,  who  poured 
into  an  ignorant  and  ardent  multitude  the  new-born  ideas  of  Euro 
pean  freedom.  The  constituent  Assembly  of  March  8,  1790,  had 
empowered  the  colonies  to  make  known  their  wishes  on  the  subject 
of  a  Constitution,  by  Colonial  Assemblies,  freely  elected  by  their  own 
citizens.  And  on  the  loth  of  May,  1791,  the  privileges  of  equality 
were  conferred  by  the  same  authority  on  all  persons  of  color,  born  of 
a  free  father  and  mother.  The  planters  openly  endeavored  to  resist 
the  decree,  and  civil  war  was  preparing,  when,  on  the  night  of  the 
2Gth  August,  1791,  the  negro  insurrection,  long  and  silently  organ 
ized,  at  once  broke  forth,  and  wrapped  the  whole  northern  part  of 
the  colony  in  flames.  The  conspiracy  embraced  nearly  the  whole  ne 
gro  population  of  the  island.  The  cruelties  exercised  exceeded  any 
thing  recorded  in  history.  The  negroes  marched  with  spiked  infants 
on  their  spears  instead  of  colors.  They  sawed  asunder  their  male 
prisoners,  and  violated  the  females  on  the  dead  bodies  of  their  hus 
bands,"  etc. 

"Louis  XVI.  was  condemned  January  loth,  1793.  On  the  21st  of 
January  he  was  executed.  The  Democratic  passions  of  St.  Domingo 
were  roused  to  the  highest  pitch  by  this  event.  Twenty  thousand 
negroes  rushed  in  and  completed  the  work  of  ruin.  And  the  uni 
versal  freedom  of  the  blacks  was  proclaimed  June  3d,  1793."* 

"By  the  expulsion  of  the  French  from  St.  Domingo,"  saith'  this 
historian,  "it  has  been- nominally  independent,  but  slavery  has  been 
far  indeed  from  being  abolished,  and  the  condition  of  the  people  any 
thing  but  ameliorated  by  the  change.  Nominally  free,  the  blacks 
have  remained  really  enslaved.  Compelled  to  labor  by  the  terrors  of 
military  discipline,  for  a  small  part  of  the  products  of  the  soil,  they 
have  retained  the  severity  without  the  advantages  of  servitude.  The 
industrious  habits,  the  flourishing  aspect  of  the  island,  have  disap 
peared,  and  the  inhabitants,  reduced  to  half  their  former  amount,  and 
bitterly  galled  by  their  republican  task-masters,  have  relapsed  into 
the  indolence  and  inactivity  of  savage  life."t 

*  Alison's  History  of  Europe.    Vol.  ii.  p.  240.     Harper's  Ed.  1848. 
t  Ib.  p.  251. 


ST.    DOMINGO.  251 

"The  revolution  of  St.  Domingo,"  continues  our  author,  "has  de 
monstrated  that  the  negroes  can  occasionally  exert  all  the  vigor  and 
heroism  which  distinguish  the  European  character  ;  but  there  is  yet 
no  reason  to  suppose  that  they  are  capable  of  the  continued  efforts, 
the  sustained  and  persevering  toil,  requisite  to  erect  the  fabric  of  civil 
ized  freedom.  An  observation  of  Gibbon  seems  decisive  on  the  sub 
ject  :  '  The  inaction  of  the  negroes  does  not  seem  to  be  the  effect  either 
of  their  virtue  or  of  their  pusillanimity.  They  indulge,  like  the  rest 
of  mankind,  their  passions  and  appetites,  and  the  adjacent  tribes  are 
engaged  in  frequent  acts  of  hostility.  But  their  rude  ignorance  has 
never  invented  any  effectual  weapons ;  they  appear  incapable  of  form 
ing  any  extensive  plan  of  government  or  conquest,  and  the  obvious 
inferiority  of  their  mental  faculties  has  been  discovered  and  abused 
by  the  nations  of  the  temperate  zone.'  If  the  negroes  are  not  infe 
rior,  either  in  vigor,  courage,  or  intelligence,  to  the  European,  how  has 
it  happened  that  they  have  remained,  for  six  thousand  years,  in  the 
savage  state  ?  It  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  any  other  conclusion  but 
that,  in  the  qualities  requisite  to  create  and  perpetuate  civilization, 
the  African  is  decidedly  inferior  to  the  European  race,  and  if  any 
doubt  could  exist  on  this  subject,  it  would  be  removed  by  the  subse 
quent  history  and  present  state  of  the  Haytian  republic." 

''The  following  table  contains  the  comparative  wealth,  produce,  and 
trade  of  St.  Domingo,  before  1789,  and  in  1832,  after  forty  years  of 
nominal  freedom."* 

1789.  1832. 

Population, 600,000.  Population, 280,000. 

Sugar  exported, ....  672,000,000  Ibs.  Sugar  exported, none. 

Coffee,      do 86,789,000  Ibs.  Coffee, 32,000,000. 

Ships  employed, 1,680.  Ships  employed, 1. 

Sailors, 27,000.  Sailors, 167. 

Exports  to  France, £6,720,000.  Exports  to  France/ none. 

Imports, £9,890,000.  Imports, none. 

Now  here,  my  Right  Reverend  Brother,  we  have  a  very  sad  but 
very  instructive  account  of  the  results  of  sudden  and  complete  eman 
cipation,  presented  by  one  of  the  most  enlightened  historians  of  the 
age,  without  any  conceivable  bias  to  incline  him  against  the  preva.il- 
'ng  sentiment  in  England,  which  is  universally  known  to  be  in  favor 

*  Alison^  History  of  Europe.    Vol.  ii.  p.  251.    Harper's  Ed.  18 13. 


252  ST.    DOMINGO. 

of  negro  equality.  And  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  even  if  we  set  aside 
the  horrible  cruelties  and  fiend-like  atrocities  which  marked  the  rev 
olution,  the  island  has  been  almost  ruined,  while  the  African  race 
have  lost,  instead  of  gaining,  by  the  change.  The  population  reduced 
from  600,000  to  280,000,  less  than  half;  the  sugar  exported  reduced 
from  672,000,000  of  pounds  to  nothing;  the  coffee  reduced  from 
nearly  87,000,000  of  pounds  to  32,000,000,  less  than  half;  the  ships 
reduced  from  1680  vessels  to  one;  the  sailors  reduced  from  27,000 
to  167;  the  exports  reduced  from  thirty-one  millions  of  dollars  to 
nothing ;  the  imports  reduced  from  forty-six  millions  of  dollars  to 
nothing !  What  a  commentary  does  this  exhibit  on  forty  years  of 
negro  liberty,  produced  by  a  sudden  change,  under  the  doctrine  pro 
claimed  by  the  atheists  of  France,  which  is  identical  with  that  now 
advocated  by  our  own  school  of  ultra-abolitionism !  In  one  point, 
however,  our  philanthropists  surpass  the  French  Directory,  namely, 
in  the  discovery  that  slaveholding  is  a  sin,  yea,  the  sum  of  all  vil 
lainies  !  That  was  left  out  of  the  Gallican  programme,  because  they 
were  open  infidels,  denouncing  religion,  and  silencing  the  priests,  and 
closing  the  churches,  and  denying  the  God  of  truth,  while  they  wor 
shiped  an  infamous  courtesan  under  the  name  of  the  goddess  of 
reason !  Whether  it  is  more  consistent  to  renounce  the  Bible  alto 
gether,  or  to  quote  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  subvert  its  teaching  and  set 
its  divine  Author  in  opposition  to  His  own  Word,  is  a  question  which 
I  do  not  profess  to  determine.  To  my  ^aiind,  it  is  like  deciding  be 
tween  Scylla  and  Charybdis.  The  true  Christian  will  carefully  shun 
them  both,  without  troubling  himself  to  inquire  whether  it  is  best 
to  be  dashed  upon  the  rock,  or  swallowed  in  the  whirlpool. 


WILBERFORCE.  253 


CHAPTER    XXXIY. 

MY  RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Having  now  set  before  you  the  re 
sult  of  the  first  example  recorded  by  history,  in  which  negro  slavery 
wtis  abolished  by  immediate  emancipation,  I  turn  next  to  the  course 
pursued  in  England,  where  the  persevering  efforts  and  eloquence  of 
the  distinguished  Wilberforce,  employed  against  a  powerful  opposi 
tion  for  more  than  twenty  years,  were  at  length  crowned  with  such 
triumphant  success. 

But  here  we  must  take  special  notice  that  the  whole  of  his  assaults 
were  at  first  directed  against  the  barbarity  and  cruelty  of  the  slave- 
trade,  without  the  slightest  intention  of  interfering  with  the  estab 
lished  relations  of  the  planters  in  the  British  colonies.  The  notion 
that  the  holding  of  a  negro  in  bondage  was  a  sin  per  se,  had  never 
entered  into  his  scheme  of  philanthropy,  for  he  was  a  devout  Christ 
ian,  and  had  no  sympathy  whatever  with  that  class  who  trim  the 
Bible  down  to  their  own  judgment  of  what  it  ought  to  ~be,  and,  under 
the  name  of  Christianity,  are  as  really  worshipers  of  reason  as  the 
open  infidels  of  the  French  Directory.  The  faith  of  Wilberforce  was 
the  faith  of  the  Church,  and  therefore  the  Church  accorded  with  his 
noble  work  in  abolishing  the  slave-trade. 

I  was  disappointed  and  sorry  to  find,  in  reading  the  minute  and 
voluminous  biography  of  this  celebrated  man,  published  by  his  sons, 
in  five  volumes,  that  none  of  his  speeches  were  preserved  entire,  and 
that  only  a  few  passages  occurred  in  which  this  broad  and  important 
distinction  was  noticed  plainly.  But  we  have  enough  of  these  scat 
tered  through  the  work,  to  prove  the  great  difference  between  his  prin 
ciples  and  those  of  the  ultra-abolitionists,  who  are  so  fond  of  thinking 
that  they  are  the  same. 

Thus,  in  Vol.  1  of  his  biography,  p.  293,  we  have  this  note  belong 
ing  to  the  year  1791.  Speaking  of  the  pamphlets  published  by  the 
abolitionists  in  answer  to  the  evidence  given  by  the  advocates  for  the 
slave-trade,  the  author,  quoting  from  his  father's  memoranda,  saith  : 


25 1  WILBERFORCE. 

"  It  was  necessary,  in  refuting  this  evidence,  to  show  the  mode  of 
obtaining  the  slaves  in  Africa,  the  effect  of  the  trade  upon  African 
manners;  the  cruelty  of  the  mode  of  transport ;  the  waste  of  life 
which  it  caused  in  the  colonies  ;  the  practicability  of  maintaining 
the  number  of  slaves  on  the  West-Indian  estates  by  breeding ;  the 
injurious  effects  of  the  Guinea  trade  upon  our  own  seamen  ;  and 
the  possibility  of  substituting  for  it  a  more  advantageous  as  well  as 
humane  traffic.  All  these  points  the  witnesses  for  the  abolition  com 
pletely  established."  And  he  adds : 

"  The  bar  were  all  against  us.  Fox  could  scarcely  prevent  Erskjne 
from  making  a  set  speech  in  favor  of  the  trade." 

Again,  in  1815,  (vol.  iv.  p.  241,)  the  biographer  states  that  Wilber- 
force  reproved  one  of  his  colleagues  for  going  so  far.  "You,"  he  tells 
Mr.  Stephen,  "  are  full  ten  degrees  above  me."  He  was  resolved,  in 
the  first  instance,  to  strengthen  the  ameliorating  influence  of  the  Act 
of  Abolition  by  preventing  the  illicit  introduction  of  fresh  laborers. 
But  he  and  others  around  him  saw  not  as  yet  to  what  they  should 
be  led.  They  had  never  acted  on  the  claim  of  abstract  rights,  and 
they  reached  emancipation  at  last  only  because  it  was  the  necessary 
conclusion  of  a  series  of  practical  improvements.  "  They  looked," 
says  Mr.  Stephen,  "  to  an  emancipation  of  which  not  the  slaves,  but 
the  masters  themselves  should  be  the  willing  authors." 

That  is  precisely  the  ground  on  which  Wilberforce  then  stood,  and 
on  the  same  ground  I  should  be  perfectly  willing  to  stand  with  him. 

Again,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Lord  Liverpool,  March  17,  1815, 
this  eminent  man  expresses  himself  as  follows,  (vol.  iv.  p.  252  :) 
"  Life  is  wearing  away,  and  I  should  indeed  be  sorry  if  mine  were  to 
terminate  before  at  least  a  foundation  had  been  laid  of  a  system  of 
reformation,  which  I  verily  believe  would  scarcely  be  more  for  the 
comfort  of  the  slaves  and  free  colored  population,  than  it  would  be  for 
the  ultimate  security  of  the  West-India  colonies  themselves." 

Again,  in  an  extract  from  one  of  his  speeches  in  Parliament,  1816, 
Wilberforce  makes  these  statements,  (vol.  iv.  p.  287 :)  "  Ever  since 
the  year  1789,  those  persons  who  resist  all  improvement  in  the  con 
dition  of  the  negroes  have  been  reiterating  the  cry  against  us  :  '  What, 
then,  you  mean  to  make  the  slaves  free!  You  intend  to  emancipate 
them  at  <mc<?,  and  without  the  least  notice  !'  It  might  be  supposed 
that  our  opponents  would  have  abandoned  this  position  after  we  had 
gone  on  for  twenty-seven  years  constantly  refuting  it.  But  no ;  they 


WILBERFORCE.  255 

still  persevere.  Nor  have  they  confined  their  assertions  to  this 
House,  or  to  this  country,  but  they  have  actually  printed  and  pub 
lished  in  the  West-Indies  that  the  design  of  the  friends  of  the  abolition 
was  to  make  all  slaves  instantly,  free.  In  short,  there  is  nothing, 
however  monstrous,  however  dangerous  to  the  tranquillity  of  our 
islands,  which  they  have  not  laid  open  to  the  eyes  and  ears  of  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  West-Indies." 

Again,  in  a  letter  to  Hannah  More,  1816,  (vol.  iv.  p.  295,)  Wilber- 
force  saith  :  "I  have  much  to  say  to  you  about  my  Registry  Bill,  or 
rather  about  its  object,  the  amelioration  of  the  state  of  the  poor 
slaves.  Alas !  alas !  it  grieves  me  to  see  the  Bristol  people  so  misled, 
but  it  really  is  entirely  the  effect  of  misinformation." 

And,  so  late  as  the  year  1818,  we  find  him  using  these  decisive 
words,  (vol.  iv.  p.  365  :)  "  Our  grand  object  and  our  universal  lan 
guage  was  and  is  to  produce  by  abolition  (of  the  trade)  a  disposition 
to  breed  instead  of  buying.  This  is  the  great  vital  principle  which 
would  work  in  every  direction,  and  produce  reform  everywhere." 

In  1822,  addressing  the  House  of  Commons,  (vol.  v.  p.  131,)  Wil- 
berforce  gave  the  first  intimation  of  his  ultimate  views  for  the  West- 
Indies.  "  Not  I  only,"  he  said,  "  but  all  the  chief  advocates  of  the 
abolition  declared  from  the  first  that  our  object  was,  by  ameliorating 
regulations,  and  by  stopping  the  influx  of  uninstructed  savages,  to 
advance  slowly  toward  the  period  when  these  unhappy  beings  might 
exchange  their  degraded  state  of  slavery  for  that  of  a  free  and  indus 
trious  peasantry.  To  that  most  interesting  object  I  still  look  for 
ward." 

The  following  year,  1823,  produced  an  order  from  the  English  min 
istry  that  the  whip  should  no  longer  be  used  in  the  correction  of  the 
slaves,  and  an  insurrection  broke  out  in  Demarara,  causing  the  death 
of  some  white  men.  "  These  results,"  saith  the  biographer,  (vol.  v. 
p.  201,)  "Mr.  Wilberforce  had  dreaded,  as  soon  as  he  heard  the  mea 
sures  which  government  had  taken.  *  What !'  he  at  once  exclaimed, 
*  have  they  given  such  an  order  without  preparation,  and  without  ex 
plaining  its  purpose  to  the  slaves — why,  it  is  positive  madness'  " 

Speaking  on  the  same  subject  in  a  letter  to  Z.  Macaulay,  (vol.  v. 
p.  252,)  he  saith  :  "  I  am  clear  that  we  should  become  the  assailants, 
and  charge  government  with  provoking  the  insurrection.  As  to  the 
mode  of  carrying  reforms  into  operation,  I  have  thought  precisely 
with  you.  The  slaves,  it  appears  to  me,  should  be  called  together 


256  WILBERFORCE. 

and  told  that  henceforth  they  would  not  be  flogged  at  the  time,  (in 
the  field,)  but  at  night,  after  the  day's  work,  if  they  had  not  con 
ducted  themselves  properly." 

And  in  the  same  year,  1823,  (vol.  v.  p.  204,)  we  have  this  state 
ment  :  "  The  conduct  of  St.  Paul,  in  sending  back  the  fugitive  Onesi- 
mus,  was  brought  against  him  in  one  of  those  attacks.  '  St.  Paul,'  he 
answers,  'directed  Philemon  to  regard  him  as  a  brother.  He  did  not 
rend  the  civil  tie  that  bound  him  to  his  master  by  individual  power. 
No  more  do  we  ;  but  by  directing  him  to  be  treated  as  a  brother,  did 
he  not  substantially  claim  for  him  even  more  than  we  ask  for  negro 
slaves  ?'  " 

Finalty,  when  he  heard  that  the  bill  for  emancipation  had  passed 
in  1833,  though  near  his  end,  he  exclaimed:  "Thank  God  that  I 
should  have  lived  to  witness  the  day  in  which  England  is  willing  to 
give  twenty  millions  sterling  for  the  abolition  of  slavery."  (Vol.  v. 
p.  370.) 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  gleaning,  from  these  volumes,  the 
passages  which  distinctly  prove  the  substantial  agreement  of  Wilber- 
force  with  the  principles  which  I,  in  my  humble  way,  have  always 
advocated.  He  attacked  the  slave-trade,  and  on  this  all  are  of  the 
same  mind,  the  Southern  States  included.  He  advocated  the  breed 
ing  of  the  slaves  in  order  to  keep  up  the  requisite  number  for  the 
colonies.  And  such  is  the  Southern  system.  He  denied  and  repu 
diated  the  intention  of  emancipating  the  slaves  for  twenty-seven  years 
together.  He  advocated  the  use  of  the  whip,  only  desiring  that,  in 
stead  of  employing  it  in  the  field,  it  should  be  applied,  if  required, 
at  night,  when  the  work  was  over.  He  wished  to  ameliorate  the  con 
dition  of  the  slaves,  without  disturbing  the  institution  itself,  until 
near  the  close  of  his  parliamentary  course :  and  after  emancipation 
was  declared,  he  approved  the  paying  a  hundred  millions  of  dollars 
to  the  masters.  But  even  when  he  was  led  to  intimate  the  final 
result  to  which  he  had  looked  forward,  he  stated  his  policy  to  be  a 
slow  advance  to  the  point  of  ultimate  freedom,  and  that  he  hoped 
would  be  accomplished  with  the  consent  of  the  planters  themselves. 

Where,  in  all  this,  do  we  find  the  dogmas  of  our  ultra-abolitionists, 
that  slaveholding  is  a  sin  under  any  circumstances  ;  that  it  is  a  suffi 
cient  reason  for  debarring  Christians  from  the  Communion ;  that  it  is 
a  duty  to  disobey  the  laws  of  the  land  by  refusing  to  return  the  fugi 
tive  slave  to  his  master  ;  that  the  Constitution  which  sanctions  slavery 


WILBERFORCE.  257 

"is  a  covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell,"  and  must  be 
done  away ;  that  the  negroes  are  entitled  to  immediate  emancipation 
without  any  equivalent  paid  the  owners  ;  that  they  have  a  right  to  a 
perfect  equality  with  the  European  race  ;  that  it  is  lawful  to  induce 
them  to  run  away,  and  if  the  master  presumes  to  apprehend  them, 
that  they  are  justified  in  killing  him,  so  that  they  may  thus  obtain 
their  freedom  ?  And,  finally,  that  a  desolating  civil  war,  which  owes 
its  main  origin  to  these  very  dogmas,  shall  be  continued  until  fire 
and  sword  shall  force  the  Southern  States  to  bow  down  to  their  au 
thority  ? 

No,  no,  my  Right  Reverend  Brother,  not  a  trace  of  all  this  can  be 
defended  on  the  principles  of  Wilberforce.  The  British  Parliament, 
under  his  guidance,  proceeded  carefully  and  cautiously,  step  by  step, 
and  were  more  than  forty  years  before  they  arrived  at  the  conclusion  ; 
although  they  were  not  living  as  we  are,  under  a  Constitution  which 
stipulated  for  the  existence  of  slavery,  and  confined  the  consideration 
of  its  policy  to  the  government  of  the  States  concerned.  The  Church 
of  England  has  never  proclaimed  her  ban  upon  the  institution,  nor 
been  known  to  make  the  holding  of  slaves  a  bar  to  her  communion. 
And  when,  at  last,  emancipation  was  decreed,  it  was  done,  not  only 
with  true  British  justice  and  magnanimity,  under  the  stipulation  of 
payment  to  the  masters,  but  also  of  apprenticeship  to  the  freed 
slaves,  which  bound  them,  for  five  years,  to  the  service  of  their 
former  owners,  and  made  the  transition  from  bondage  to  liberty  more 
gradual  and  secure.  .. 

Yet,  with  all  these  guards,  the  results  of  the  measure  have  been 
&,r  from  satisfactory.  And  to  the  proof  of  this,  I  shall  invite  your 
attention  in  the  next  chapter. 


258  WILBERFORCE. 


CHAPTER    XXXV. 

MY  RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  eminent  historian,  Alison,  in 
his  History  of  Europe,  gives  us  the  following  statement  of  the  argu 
ments  employed  by  Wilberforce,  Lord  Howick,  and  Earl  Grenville, 
for  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade,  in  A.D.  1806,  before  the  British 
Parliament,  and  I  commend  the  extract  to  the  attention  of  all  who 
are  disposed  to  advocate  the  perilous  dogma  of  immediate  eman 
cipation  : 

"  The  grand,  the  decisive  advantage,"  said  they,  "  which  recom 
mends  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade,  is,  that,  by  closing  that  sup 
ply  of  foreign  negroes  to  which  the  planters  have  hitherto  been 
accustomed  to  trust,  we  will  compel  them  to  promote  the  multiplica 
tion  of  the  slaves  on  their  own  estates,  and  it  is  obvious  that  this  can 
not  be  done,  without  improving  their  physical  and  moral  condition. 
The  dangers  so  powerfully  drawn,  as  likely  to  result  from  this  meas 
ure,  are  really  to  be  apprehended,  not  from  it,  but  from  another 
with  which  it  has  no  connection,  viz.  the  immediate  emancipation 
of  the  negroes.  That  would  produce  horrors  similar  to  those  which 
have  happened  in  St.  Domingo.  But  nothing  of  that  kind  is  in  con 
templation.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  expressly  to  exclude  them,  and 
induce  that  gradual  emancipation  which  is  called  for,  alike  by  just 
ice  to  the  planters  and  the  interests  of  the  slaves  themselves,  that 
the  measure  under  discussion  is  proposed."* 

Nothing  can  prove,  more  decisively,  the  difference  between  the 
views  entertained  by  those  true  Christian  philanthropists  of  Old 
England,  and  the  course  which  is  so  strongly  urged  by  the  school  of 
our  ultra-abolitionists  in  New-England.  But  if  the  dangers  of  imme 
diate  emancipation  were  deprecated  so  earnestly  by  Wilberforce  and 
his  colleagues,  when  the  question  only  concerned  the  comparatively 
small  number  of  negroes  in  their  West-Indian  Colonies,  how  much 
more  would  they  have  shrunk  from  incurring  those  dangers  if  they 

*  Alison's  History  of  Europe,  2  vols.  p.  407.    Harper's  Ed.  1S43. 


RESULTS  OF  EMANCIPATION.  259 

had  been  placed  in  our  circumstances,  with  the  safety  of  fourteen 
States,  and  the  condition  of  four  millions  of  slaves,  depending  on  the 
issue ! 

I  proceed,  however,  to  the  remarks  of  the  historian  upon  the 
results  which  followed  the"  English  movement,  guarded  as  it  was  by 
so  much  of  cautious  wisdom. 

"There  can  be  no  question,"  saith  our  author,  "that  this  great 
step  was  recommended  by  every  consideration  of  justice  and  human 
ity.  Nevertheless  its  effects  hitherto  have  been  in  the  highest  degree 
deplorable.  The  prophecy  of  Mr.  Hibbert  and  the  opponents  of  the 
abolition,  that  the  slave-trade,  instead  of  ceasing,  would  only  change 
hands,  and  at  length  fall  into  the  management  of  desperate  wretches 
who  would  double  its  horrors,  has  been  too  fatally  verified,  and  to  an  ex 
tent  even  greater  than  they  anticipated.  From  the  returns  laid  before 
Parliament  it  appears  that  the  slave-trade  is  now  four  times  as  exten 
sive  as  it  was  in  1V89,  and  twice  as  great  as  it  was  when  the  efforts 
of  Mr.  Wilberforce  procured  its  abolition  in  the  British  dominions. 
Nearly  200,000  captives  now  annually  cross  the  Atlantic.  Their 
former  sufferings  in  the  large  and  capacious  Liverpool  slave-ships 
were  as  nothing  compared  to  those  which  they  now  endure,  in  the 
hands  of  the  Spanish  and  the  Portuguese.  And  tKey  are  brought, 
not  to  the  comparatively  easy  life  of  the  British  West-India  Islands, 
but  to  the  desperate  service  of  Cuba  or  Brazil,  in  the  latter  of  which 
they  are  worked  like  animals,  in  droves  of  several  hundreds,  without 
a  single  female  among  them,  and  without  any  attempt  to  perpetuate 
their  race.  They  are  thus  worn  down  to  the  grave  by  a  lingering 
process,  which,  on  an  average,  terminates  their  existence  in  seven 
years." 

"The  precipitate  and  irretrievable  step  of  emancipation,  forced  on 
the  Legislature  in  1834,  by  benevolent  but  incautious,  and  perhaps, 
mistaken  feeling,  has  already  occasioned  so  great  a  decline  in  the 
produce  of  the  British  West-Indies,  and  excited  such  general  ex 
pectations  of  a  still  greater  and  increasing  deficiency,  that  the  im 
pulse  thereby  given  to  the  foreign  slave-trade  to  fill  up  the  gap, 
has  been  unbounded,  and,  it  is  to  be  feared,  almost  irremediable."* 

"  It  is  the  multitude  who  forced  on  those  measures,"  continues  the 
historian,  "  who  frustrated  all  the  benevolent  efforts  of  Mr.  Wilber- 

*  Alison's  History  of  Europe,  vol.  ii.  p.  499, 


2  CO  ADVANTAGES  OF  SLAVERY. 

force  and  Mr.  Fox,  and  rendered  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  in 
the  British  dominions  the  remote  and  innocent  cause  of  boundless 
misfortunes  to  the  negro  race.  The  British  slaves,  since  the  slave- 
trade  was  abolished,  had  become  fully  equal  to  the  wants  of  the 
colonies  ;  their  numbers  were  on  the  increase,  their  condition  was 
comfortable  and  prosperous  beyond  that  of  any  peasantry  in  Europe, 
and  large  numbers  were  annually  purchasing  their  freedom  from  the 
produce  of  their  own  industry.  But  now  all  these  admirable  effects 
of  the  abolition  of  the  slave-trade  have  been  completely  frustrated, 
and  the  humane  but  deluded  inhabitants  of  Great  Britain  are  bur 
dened  with  twenty  millions,  to  ruin,  in  the  end,  their  own  planters, 
consign  to  barbarism  their  own  negroes,  cut  off  a  principal  branch  of 
their  naval  strength,  and  double  the  slave-trade  in  extent,  and  quad 
ruple  it  in  horrors  throughout  the  world."* 

I  shall  close  my  extracts  from  this  distinguished  writer  with  a 
passage  of  great  force,  which  adds  the  profound  wisdom  of  the  phi 
losopher  to  the  truth  of  the  historian.  Speaking  of  the  system  of 
Russian  slavery,  which  has  since  been  done  away,  he  saith: 

"  The  laborers  on  an  estate  constitute,  as  they  formerly  did  in  the 
West-Indies,  the  chief  part  of  its  value,  and  thus  the  proprietor  is 
induced  to  take  care  of  his  slaves  by  the  same  motives  which  prompt 
him  to  do  so  with  his  buildings  or  his  cattle.  Relief  in  sickness, 
care  of  orphans,  maintenance  of  the  maimed,  or  in  old  age,  are  im 
portant  advantages  to  the  laboring  classes,  even  in  the  most  favorable 
circumstances,  and  with  all  the  facilities  for  rendering  themselves 
independent,  which  the  habits  of  civilized  life,  and  the  power  of  ac 
cumulating  and  preserving  capital  arising  from  the  interchange  of  com 
merce,  afford. — In  rude  periods,  when  these  advantages  are  unknown, 
and  the  means  of  providing  during  the  vigor  for  the  weakness  of  life 
do  not  exist,  they  are  of  inestimable  value. — Stripes,  insults,  and 
compulsory  labor,  are  no  light  evils,  but  they  are  as  nothing  com 
pared  to  the  wasting  agonies  of  famine,  and  the  violence  of  ill-directed 
and  ungovernable  passions,  which  never  fail  to  seize  upon  prema 
turely  emancipated  man.  The  servitude  and  forced  industry  of  the 
serf  fills  up  the  interval,  the  long  and  important  interval,  between 
the  roving  independence  of  the  savage,  who  lives  by  the  chase,  or 
the  milk  of  his  herds,  and  the  voluntary  toil  of  the  freeman,  around 

*  AtiaoTi'a  History  of  Europe,  vol.  il.  p.  600. 


ADVANTAGES  OF  SLAVERY.          261 

whom  artificial  wants  have  thrown  the  unseen  but  riveted  chains  of 
civilized  life.  But  for  its  existence,  this  wide  chasm  could  never 
have  been  passed,  for  man  will  never  labor  voluntarily  till  lie  has 
acquired  the  habits  and  desires  of  an  advanced  state  of  society ;  and 
those  habits,  when  generally  pervading  the  community,  can  exist 
only  from  the  effect  of  previous  centuries  of  compulsory  labor"* 

Such  are  the  opinions  of  an  author  who  occupies  a  high  place 
amongst  the  most  enlightened  and  thoroughly  informed  historians  of 
the  age,  and  whose  proclivities,  from  his  birth,  his  education,  and 
his  natural  sympathy  with  the  tone  of  sentiment  around  him,  would 
all  tend  to  an  exaggerated  estimate  of  the  evils  of  slavery,  and  the 
advantages  of  freedom.  I  could  add  a  large  amount  of  other  testi 
mony,  to  prove  the  correctness  of  his  views  upon  the  dangers  of 
sudden  and  hasty  emancipation.  But  it  is  unnecessary.  The  state- 
ments  of  this  eminent  writer  are  enough  for  any  candid  mind,  and  to 
those  who  are  fond  of  their  delusion,  and  determined  to  maintain  it, 
all  the  facts  and  arguments  which  could  be  heaped  together  would 
be  addressed  in  vain. 

*  Alison' 8  History  of  Europe,  vol.  iv.  p.  12-13.    Harper's  Ed.  1848. 


262  GRADUAL  CESSATION  OF  SLAVERY. 


CHAPTER    XXXVI. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER:  The  favorite  argument  of  our  ultra- 
abolitionists  is  derived  from  the  assumption  that  the  slave-system  of 
the  South  is  in  direct  contrariety  to  the  Gospel,  and  that  the  extinc 
tion  of  slavery  in  Europe  was  owing  to  the  influence  of  Christianity. 
No  statement  can  be  more  utterly  unsupported  by  the  facts  of  history, 
although  it  is  repeated,  over  and  over  again,  by  writers  and  orators, 
who  ought  to  know  better.  But  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  it  is  the 
fashion  of  too  many  to  repeat  these  declarations  with  as  much  confi 
dence  as  if  they  were  self-evident,  and,  like  the  axioms  in  mathemat 
ics,  needed  no  demonstration  ;  because  they  are  perfectly  aware  that 
they  are  always  acceptable  to  those  who  have  no  personal  interest  in- 
the  institution,  and  that  very  few  will  object  to  the  eloquence  which 
seems  to  honor  religion,  when  it  costs  them  nothing  more  than  an 
empty  tribute  of  applause. 

I  have  already  shown,  by  the  most  abundant  testimony,  that  the 
Church  of  Christ,  from  the  beginning,  recognized  slavery  as  a  system 
established  by  the  laws  of  the  State,  in  accordance  with  the  wisdom 
of  Divine  Providence ;  and  I  have  now  to  prove,  by  the  best  writers 
of  law  and  history,  that  the  causes  which  led  to  its  extinction  in 
Europe  were  entirely  of  a  civil  and  not  of  a  religious  character.  This, 
indeed,  would  be  a  necessary  result  from  the  evidence  which  I  have 
so  largely  furnished ;  but  I  desire  to  set  it  forth  with  the  full  force  of 
many  concurrent  witnesses. 

The  system  of  slavery,  as  it  formerly  existed  amongst  our  Euro 
pean  ancestors,  is  thus  stated  by  the  historian  Hume.  (Appendix  to 
vol.  i.  p.  136.) 

"  The  most  numerous  rank  by  far,  in  the  community,  seems  to 
have  been  the  slaves  or  villeins  who  were  the  property  of  their  lords, 
and  were  consequently  incapable  of  possessing  any  property.  The 
power  of  the  master  was  not  unlimited  among  the  Anglo-Saxons,  as 
it  was  among  their  ancestors.  If  a  man  beat  out  his  slave's  eye  or 


GRADUAL   CESSATION  OF  SLAVEEY.  263 

teeth,  the  slave  recovered  his  liberty  ;  if  he  killed  him,  he  paid  a  fine 
to  the  king,  provided  the  slave  died  within  a  day  after  the  wound 
or  blow ;  otherwise  he  passed  unpunished.  The  selling  of  themselves 
or  children  to  slavery  was  always  in  practice  among  the  German 
nations,  and  was  continued  by  the  Anglo-Saxons." 

Blackstone,  in  his  commentaries,  is  more  express.  "  Under  the 
Saxon  government,"  saith  he,  "  there  were,  as  Sir  William  Temple 
speaks,  a  sort  of  people  in  a  condition  of  downright  servitude,  used 
and  employed  in  the  most  servile  works,  and  belonging,  both  they, 
their  children,  and  effects,  to  the  lord  of  the  soil,  like  the  rest  of  the 
cattle  or  stock  upon  it.  On  the  arrival  of  the  Normans  here,  it  seems 
not  improbable  that  they  who  were  strangers  to  any  other  than  a 
feudal  state,  might  give  some  sparks  of  enfranchisement  to  such 
wretched  persons  as  fell  to  their  share,  by  admitting  them,  as  well  as 
others,  to  the  oath  of  fealty ;  which  conferred  a  right  of  protection, 
and  raised  the  tenant  to  a  kind  of  estate  superior  to  downright 
slavery,  but  inferior  to  every  other  condition.  This  they  called 
villenage,  and  the  tenants  villeins,  either  from  the  word  vilis,  or 
else,  as  Sir  Edward  Coke  tells  us,  a  villa,  because  they  lived  chiefly 
in  villages,  and  were  employed  in  rustic  works  of  the  most  sordid 
kind."  (Bl.  Com.  b.  ii.  ch.  vi.  sec.  3,  p.  92.) 

"These  villeins,  belonging  principally  to  lords  of  manors,  were 
either  villeins  regardant — that  is,  annexed  to  the  manor  or  land — or 
else  they  were  in  gross,  or  at  large — that  is,  annexed  to  the  person  of 
the  lord,  and  transferable  by  deed  from  one  owner  to  another.  They 
could  not  leave  their  lord  without  his  permission,  but  if  they  ran 
away,  or  were  purloined  from  him,  might  be  claimed  and  recovered 
by  action,  like  beasts  or  other  chattels."  (Ib.  p.  93.) 

"The  children  of  villeins  were  also  in  the  same  state  of  bondage 
with  their  parents.  The  law,  however,  protected  the  persons  of  vil 
leins,  as  the  king's  subjects,  against  atrocious  injuries  of  the  lord  ; 
for  he  might  not  kill  or  maim  his  villein,  though  he  might  beat  him 
with  impunity."  (Ib.  p.  93-4.) 

"  When  tenure  in  villenage  was  virtually  abolished  by  the  statute 
of  Charles  II.,  there  was  hardly  a  pure  villein  left  in  the  nation. 
For  Sir  Thomas  Smith  testifies  that  in  all  his  time  (and  he  was 
Secretary  to  Edward  VI.)  he  never  knew  any  villein  in  gross  through 
out  the  realm,  and  the  few  villeins  regardant  that  were  then  remain 
ing  were  such  only  as  had  belonged  to  bishops,  monasteries,  or 


264  GRADUAL  CESSATION  OF  SLAVERY. 

other  ecclesiastical  corporations,  in  the  preceding  times  of  popery." 
(Ib.  p.  96.) 

Here  then,  we  see  that  this  sort  of  English  slavery  died  out  by 
degrees,  without  any  direct  assault  either  by  Church  or  State.  The 
villeins  were  of  the  same  race  of  Anglo-Saxons,  and  there  was  no  bar 
rier  of  color  to  prevent  their  gradual  emancipation.  But  to  prove 
conclusively  that  Christianity  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  change, 
the  last  of  the  villeins  that  remained  were  those  who  belonged  to  the 
bishops,  the  monasteries,  and  other  ecclesiastical  corporations.  It  is 
perfectly  manifest  that  if  the  Church  had  disapproved  the  system,  as 
being  inconsistent  with  the  Gospel,  the  bishops  and  the  monasteries 
would  have  been  the  first,  instead  of  the  last,  to  let  their  bondmen  go. 


GIBBON.  265 


CHAPTER   XXXVII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  next  witness  to  the  state  of  slavery 
during  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  is  the  historian  Gibbon, 
from  whose  luminous  and  accurate  pages  I  shall  quote  a  highly  inter 
esting  statement  on  the  subject,  for  my  readers'  satisfaction. 

After  giving  a  masterly  sketch  of  the  Roman  polity  and  law,  this 
admirable  writer  proceeds  as  follows,  viz. : 

"  It  was  by  such  institutions  that  the  nations  of  the  empire  insen 
sibly  melted  away  into  the  Roman  name  and  people.  But  there  still 
remained,  in  the  centre  of  every  province  and  of  every  family,  an 
unhappy  condition  of  men  who  endured  the  weight,  without  sharing 
the  benefits  of  society.  In  the  free  states  of  antiquity,  the  domestic 
slaves  were  exposed  to  the  wanton  rigors  of  despotism.  The  slaves 
consisted,  for  the  most  part,  of  barbarian  captives,  taken  in  thousands 
by  the  chance  of  war,  purchased  at  a  vile  price,  accustomed  to  a  lifo 
of  independence,  and  impatient  to  break  and  avenge  their  fetters. 
Against  such  internal  enemies,  whose  desperate  insurrections  had 
more  than  once  reduced  the  republic  to  the  brink  of  destruction,  the 
most  severe  regulations  and  the  most  cruel  treatment  seemed  almost 
justified  by  the  great  law  of  self-preservation.  But  when  the  princi 
pal  nations  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  were  united  under  the  laws 
of  one  sovereign,  the  source  of  foreign  supplies  flowed  with  much 
less  abundance,  and  the  Romans  were  reduced  to  the  milder  but 
more  tedious  method  of  propagation.  In  their  numerous  families,  and 
particularly  in  their  country  estates,  they  encouraged  the  marriage  of 
their  slaves.  The  sentiments  of  nature,  the  habits  of  education,  and 
the  possession  of  a  dependent  species  of  property,  contributed  to  alle 
viate  the  hardships  of  servitude.  The  existence  of  a  slave  became 
an  object  of  greater  value,  and  though  his  happiness  still  depended 
on  the  temper  and  circumstances  of  the  master,  the  humanity  of  the 
latter,  instead  of  being  restrained  by  fear,  was  encouraged  by  the 
12 


266  GIBBON". 

sense  of  his  own  interest.  The  progress  of  manners  was  accelerated 
by  the  virtue  or  policy  of  the  emperors ;  and  by  the  edicts  of  Had 
rian  and  the  Antonines,  the  protection  of  the  laws  was  extended  to 
the  most  abject  part  of  mankind.  The  jurisdiction  of  life  and  death 
over  the  slaves — a  power  long  exercised  and  often  abused — was  taken 
out  of  private  hands,  and  reserved  to  the  magistrates  alone.  The 
subterranean  prisons  were  abolished,  and  upon  a  just  complaint  of 
intolerable  treatment,  the  injured  slave  obtained  either  his  deliverance 
or  a  less  cruel  master." 

u  Hope,  the  best  comfort  of  our  imperfect  condition,  was  not  denied 
to  the  Roman  slave ;  and  if  he  had  any  opportunity  of  rendering  him 
self  either  useful  or  agreeable,  he  might  very  naturally  expect  that 
the  diligence  and  fidelity  of  a  few  years  would  be  rewarded  with  the 
inestimable  gift  of  freedom.  The  benevolence  of  the  master  was  so 
frequently  prompted  by  the  meaner  suggestions  of  vanity  and  avarice, 
that  the  laws  found  it  more  necessary  to  restrain  than  to  encourage 
a  profuse  and  undistinguishing  liberality,  which  might  degenerate 
into  a  very  dangerous  abuse.  It  was  a  maxim  of  ancient  jurispru 
dence,  that  as  a  slave  had  not  any  country  of  his  own,  he  acquired 
with  his  liberty  an  admission  into  the  political  society  of  which  his 
patron  was  a  member.  The  consequences  of  this  maxim  would  have 
prostituted  the  privileges  of  the  Roman  city  to  a  mean  and  promiscu 
ous  multitude.  Some  seasonable  exceptions  were  therefore  provided ; 
and  the  honorable  distinction  was  confined  to  such  slaves  only  as, 
for  just  causes,  and  with  the  approbation  of  the  magistrate,  should 
receive  a  solemn  and  legal  manumission.  Even  those  chosen  freed- 
men  obtained  no  more  than  the  private  rights  of  citizens,  and  were 
rigorously  excluded  from  civil  or  military  honors.  Whatever  might 
be  the  merit  or  fortune  of  their  sons,  they  likewise  were  esteemed 
unworthy  of  a  seat  in  the  Senate;  nor  were  the  traces  of  a  servile 
origin  allowed  to  be  completely  obliterated  till  the  third  or  fourth 
generation."  (Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall,  etc.,  vol.  i.  pp.  51-2. 
New- York  ed.  1822.) 

"The  youths  of  a  promising  genius,"  (among  the  slaves,)  continues 
our  author,  "  were  instructed  in  the  arts  and  sciences,  and  their  price 
was  ascertained  by  the  degree  of  their  skill  and  talents.  Almost 
every  profession,  either  liberal  or  mechanical,  might  be  found  in  the 
house  of  an  opulent  senator.  It  was  more  for  the  interest  of  the 
merchant  or  manufacturer  to  purchase  than  to  hire  his  workmen; 


GIBBON.  267 

and  in  the  country,  slaves  were  employed  as  the  cheapest  and  most 
laborious  instruments  of  agriculture.  Four  hundred  slaves  were 
maintained  in  a  single  palace  of  Rome.  The  same  number  belonged 
to  an  estate  which  an  African  widow,  of  a  very  private  condition, 
resigned  to  her  son,  while  she  reserved  to  herself  a  much  larger  share 
of  her  property.  A  freedman,  under  the  reign  of  Augustus,  though 
his  fortune  had  suffered  great  losses  in  the  civil  wars,  left  behind  him 
three  thousand  six  hundred  yoke  of  oxen,  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  head  of  smaller  cattle,  and,  what  was  almost  included  in 
the  description  of  cattle,  four  thousand  one  hundred  and  sixteen 
slaves."  (Ib.  pp.  52-3.) 

With  regard  to  the  immense  number  of  the  slaves,  the  historian 
makes  the  following  estimate  : 

"After  weighing  with  attention  every  circumstance  which  could 
influence  the  balance,  it  seems  probable  that  there  existed,  in  the 
time  of  the  Emperor  Claudius,  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  mil 
lions  of  persons,  a  degree  of  population  which  possibly  exceeds  that 
of  modern  Europe,  and  forms  the  most  numerous  society  that  has 
ever  been  united  under  the  same  system  of  government.  The  slaves 
were  at  least  equal  in  number  to  the  free  inhabitants  of  the  Roman 
world."  (Ib.  p.  53-4.) 

On  this  copious  extract  from  our  eminent  historian,  I  would  sug 
gest  a  few  points  worthy  of  special  observation. 

1.  That  these  sixty  millions  of  slaves  included  a  vast  multitude, 
equal,  in  capacity  and  intellect,  to  their  masters.  Descended  as  they 
were  from  all  the  nations  with  whom  the  Romans  had  ever  been  at 
war,  there  were  doubtless  some  Africans,  but  the  greater  part,  by  far, 
were  Asiatics  and  Europeans;  and  Greeks,  Germans,  Gauls,  and 
Britons  were  in  abundance  amongst  them.  Their  system  was  not 
confined  to  one  savage  and  barbarous  race,  taken  from  the  most 
degraded  portion  of  the  human  family,  as  it  is  in  the  Southern  States. 
And  hence  it  is  easy  to  account  for  the  fact  that  they  were  far  more 
liable  to  insurrections,  and  that  those  insurrections  were  much  more 
formidable  ;  because  the  great  majority  of  the  slaves  possessed  a  full 
amount  of  native  energy  and  talent.  The  most  serious  of  these  revolts 
had  for  its  leader  Spartacus,  a  Greek,  who  was  a  noted  gladiator.  To 
such  men  as  these,  slavery  must  indeed  have  been  a  galling  debase 
ment.  While,  to  the  negro  race,  it  has  been  the  means  of  improve- 


268  GIBBON. 

merit  and  elevation,  greatly  superior  to  any  condition  which  they 
enjoyed  before. 

2.  I   would  remark,  in  the  next  place,    the  checks  which  the 
Roman   government   thought  necessary   to    prevent  indiscriminate 
emancipation,  and  the  restraints  which  they  placed  on  the  freedmen, 
not  permitting  them  to  be  admitted  into  the  army,  nor  to  hold  any 
civil  office,  until  the  third  or  fourth  generation.     Notwithstanding 
their  equality  of  race,  and  the   progress   of  many  amongst  them 
in  art  and  science,  the  idea  that  a  newly-emancipated  slave  was  forth 
with  fit  for  the  full  privileges  of  freemen,  was  regarded,  by  these  wise 
ancients,  as  an  utter  absurdity. 

3.  And  lastly,   I  must  charge  the   historian  with  a  very  unfair 
omission,  where  he  speaks  of  the  causes  which  produced  so  great  an 
amelioration  in  the  treatment  of  the  slaves.     For  these  causes  were 
mainly  the  results  of  the  Gospel.     We  have  seen,  in  the  early  fathers 
and  councils  of  the  Christian  Church,  how  earnestly  they  set  forth 
the  precepts  of  the  Apostles  in  the  duty  of  the  masters,  to  be  just, 
and  kind,  and  merciful  to  those  whom  they  held  in  bondage.     It  was 
the  proper  office  of  the  Church,  from  the  beginning,  not  to  make  the 
slightest  effort  to  abolish  the  institution,  but  to  render  its  practical 
administration  as  consistent  as  possible  with  justice  and  with  love. 
This  gifted  historian,  however,  was  an  infidel  philosopher ;  and  much 
as  we  may  admire  his  learning,  his  accuracy,  and  his  style,  we  could 
hardly  expect  from  his  pen  a  willing  tribute  to  the  humane  and  puri 
fying  influence  of  Christianity. 


ROBERTSON.  269 


CHAPTER    XXXYIII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  next  historical  testimony  bearing 
on  the  subject,  is  that  of  Robertson,  whose  celebrated  work  on  the 
reign  of  Charles  V.  gives  a  clear  statement  of  slavery  in  Europe,  an 
terior  to  the  sixteenth  century.  I  quote  from  Note  ix.  vol.  1,  p.  191, 
of  Hosford's  ed.  1822 : 

"  The  servi,  or  slaves,"  saith  this  author,  "  seem  to  have  been  the 
most  numerous  class,  and  consisted  either  of  captives  taken  in  war, 
or  of  persons,  the  property  in  whom  was  acquired  in  some  of  the 
various  methods  enumerated  by  Du  Cange,  voc.  servus,  v.  6,  p.  447. 
The  wretched  condition  of  this  numerous  class  will  appear  from  sev 
eral  circumstances.  1.  Their  masters  had  absolute  dominion  over 
their  persons.  They  had  the  power  of  punishing  their  slaves  capi 
tally,  without  the  intervention  of  any  judge.  This  dangerous  right 
they  possessed  not  only  in  the  more  early  periods,  when  their  man 
ners  were  fierce,  but  it  continued  as  late  as  the  twelfth  century.  Even 
after  the  jurisdiction  of  masters  came  to  be  restrained,  the  life  of  a 
slave  was  deemed  to  be  of  so  little  value,  that  a  very  slight  compen 
sation  atoned  for  taking  it  away.  They  were  not  originally  permitted 
to  marry.  During  several  centuries  after  the  barbarous  nations  em 
braced  the  Christian  religion,  slaves  who  lived  as  husband  and  wife 
were  not  joined  together  by  any  religious  ceremony,  and  did  not  re 
ceive  the  nuptial  benediction  from  a  priest.  When  this  conjunction 
came  to  be  considered  as  a  lawful  marriage,  they  were  not  permitted 
to  marry  without  the  consent  of  their  master ;  and  such  as  ventured 
to  do  so,  without  obtaining  that,  were  punished  with  great  severity, 
and  sometimes  were  put  to  death.  When  the  manners  of  the  Euro 
pean  nations  became  more  gentle,  and  their  ideas  more  liberal,  slaves 
who  married  without  their  master's  consent  were  subjected  only  to  a 
fine.  All  the  children  of  slaves  were  in  the  same  condition  with  their 
parents,  and  became  the  property  of  their  masters ;  and  that  so  en 
tirely,  that  they  could  sell  them  at  pleasure.  Slaves  had  a  title  to 


270  ROBERTSON. 

nothing  but  subsistence  and  clothes  from  their  master ;  all  the  profit 
of  their  labor  accrued  to  him.  Conformably  to  the  same  principle, 
all  the  effects  of  slaves  belonged  to  their  master  after  death,  and  they 
could  not  dispose  of  them  by  testament. — It  was  enacted  in  the  laws 
of  almost  all  the  nations  of  Europe,  that  no  slave  should  be  admitted 
to  give  evidence  against  a  freeman  in  a  court  of  justice." 

"  The  mllani  (or  serfs)  were  adscripti  glebes,  or  villa,  (bound  to  the 
soil  or  village,)  from  which  they  derived  their  name,  and  were  trans 
ferable  along  with  it.  But  in  this  they  differed  from  slaves,  that  they 
paid  a  fixed  rent  to  their  masters  for  the  land  which  they  cultivated, 
and  after  paying  that,  all  the  fruits  of  their  labor  and  industry  be 
longed  to  themselves." 

"  Such  was  the  spirit  of  tyranny,  however,  which  prevailed  among 
the  great  proprietors  of  lands,  and  so  various  were  the  opportunities 
of  oppressing  those  who  were  settled  on  their  estates,  or  of  rendering 
their  condition  intolerable,  that  many  freemen,  in  despair,  renounced 
their  liberty,  and  voluntarily  surrendered  themselves  as  slaves  to 
their  powerful  masters.  This  they  did  in  order  that  their  masters 
might  become  more  immediately  interested  to  afford  them  protection, 
together  with  the  means  of  subsisting  themselves  and  their  families. 
It  was  still  more  common  for  freemen  to  surrender  their  liberty  to 
bishops  or  abbots,  that  they  might  partake  of  the  security  which  the 
vassals  and  slaves  of  churches  and  monasteries  enjoyed,  in  conse 
quence  of  the  superstitious  veneration  paid  to  the  saint  under  whose 
immediate  protection  they  were  supposed  to  be  taken.  The  number 
of  slaves  in  every  nation  of  Europe  was  immense.  The  greater  part 
of  the  inferior  class  of  people,  in  France,  were  reduced  to  this  state 
at  the  commencement  of  the  third  race  of  kings.  The  same  was  the 
case  in  England." 

In  another  part  of  this  volume,  (Note  20,  §  1,  p.  229,)  the  histo 
rian,  Dr.  Robertson,  states  the  practice  of  manumission  on  religious 
motives  which  actuated  individuals,  and  then  (p.  232)  proceeds  to  say 
that  "as  sentiments  of  religion  induced  some  to  grant  liberty  to  their 
fellow-Christians  who  groaned  under  the  yoke  of  servitude,  so  mis 
taken  ideas  concerning  devotion  led  others  to  relinquish  their  liberty. 
The  oblati,  or  voluntary  slaves  of  churches  or  monasteries  were  very 
numerous.  How  zealous  the  clergy  were  to  encourage  the  opinion 
which  led  to  this  practice  will  appear  from  a  charter  by  which  one 
gives  himself  up  as  a  slave  to  a  monastery.  Great,  however,  as  the 


ROBERTSON.  271 

power  of  religion  was,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  enfranchisement  of 
slaves  was  a  frequent  practice  while  the  feudal  system  preserved  its 
vigor.  On  the  contrary,  there  were  laws  which  set  bounds  to  it,  as 
detrimental  to  society.  The  inferior  order  of  men  owed  the  recovery 
of  their  liberty  to  the  decline  of  that  aristocratical  policy,  which  lodged 
the  most  extensive  power  in  the  hands  of  a  few  members  of  the  so 
ciety,  and  depressed  all  the  rest.  When  Louis  X.  issued  his  ordinance, 
several  slaves  had  been  so  long  accustomed  to  servitude,  and  their 
minds  were  so  much  debased  by  that  unhappy  situation,  that  they  re 
fused  to  accept  of  the  liberty  which  was  offered  them.  Long  after 
the  reign  of  Louis  X.  several  of  the  French  nobility  continued  to  as 
sert  their  ancient  dominion  over  their  slaves.  It  appears  from  an 
ordinance  of  the  famous  Bertrand  de  Guesclin,  Constable  of  France, 
that  the  custom  of  enfranchising  them  was  considered  a  pernicious 
innovation.  There  is  no  general  law  for  the  manumission  of  slaves 
in  the  statute-book  of  England,  similar  to  that  of  the  kings  of  France. 
Though  the  genius  of  the  English  Constitution  seems  early  to  have 
favored  personal  liberty,  personal  servitude,  nevertheless,  continued 
long  in  England  in  some  particular  places.  In  the  year  1514,  we  find 
a  Charter  of  Henry  VIII.  enfranchising  two  slaves  belonging  to  one 
of  his  manors.  As  late  as  the  year  1574,  there  is  a  Commission  from 
Queen  Elizabeth  with  respect  to  the  manumission  of  certain  bondmen 
belonging  to  her." 

I  have  extracted  the  whole  of  these  passages  at  great  length,  be 
cause  I  wish  to  give  the  reader  the  fullest  information  in  my  power. 
But  their  evidence  is  clear  on  two  points,  which  properly  belong  to 
my  argument.  First,  that  large  numbers  of  freemen  became  volun 
tary  slaves  to  the  churches  and  monasteries  in  Europe,  and  that  the 
clergy  were  zealous  to  encourage  the  practice  ;  a  very  decisive  proof 
that  no  sin  was  attached  to  the  relation  in  their  judgment.  And 
secondly,  that  the  inferior  order  of  men  owed  the  recovery  of  their 
liberty,  not,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  to  the  influence  of  Christianity, 
but  to  the  decline  of  the  aristocratic  feudal  system.  Here,  therefore, 
we  have  another  proof  of  the  same  fact,  viz.  that  the  Church  did  not 
consider  it  a  religious  duty  to  meddle  with  the  law  of  the  State  on 
this  subject,  but  took  a  full  share  in  the  existing  institution,  while  her 
influence  was  used  to  ameliorate  and  improve  the  treatment  of  the 
slaves,  both  by  precept  and  example.  Hence,  freemen,  who  were  dis-  / 


272  ROBERTSON. 

posed  to  seek  the  greater  protection  which  slavery  gave  them,  during 
those  turbulent  ages  of  baronial  strife  and  contention,  preferred  to 
have  the  Church  or  the  monastery  for  their  master ;  because  they 
knew  that  they  would  there  experience  a  milder  and  kindlier  exercise 
of  authority  than  they  could  expect  elsewhere. 


MOTLEY.  273 


CHAPTER   XXXIX. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  There  are  some  interesting  statements 
of  our  distinguished  American  historian,  Mr.  Motley,  in  his  "Dutch 
Republic,"  to  which  I  shall  next  invite  your  attention. 

Thus,  speaking  of  the  Gauls,  in  the  time  of  Julius  Cesar,  he  saith  : 
that  "  the  people  were  all  slaves.  The  knights  or  nobles  were  all 
trained  to  arms.  The  people  had  no  rights  at  all,  and  were  glad  to 
assign  themselves  as  slaves  to  any  noble  who  was  strong  enough  to 
protect  them.  In  peace,  the  Druids  exercised  the  main  functions  of 
government."  (Vol.  1,  p.  7-8.) 

"  The  Anglo-Saxon  Willibrod,  in  the  eighth  century,  destroyed  the 
images  of  Woden  in  Walcheren,  and  founded  churches  in  North  Hol 
land.  Charles  Martel  rewarded  him  with  extensive  domains  above 
U  trecht,  together  with  many  slaves  and  other  chattels.  Soon  after 
wards  he  was  consecrated  Bishop  of  all  the  Frisians.  Thus  arose 
the  famous  episcopate  of  Utrecht."  (Ib.  p.  31.) 

Describing  the  condition  of  the  Netherlands  in  the  tenth  century, 
the  historian  saith  that  "  slavery  was  both  voluntary  and  compulsory. 
Paupers  sold  themselves  that  they  might  escape  starvation.  The 
timid  sold  themselves  that  they  might  escape  violence.  These  volun 
tary  sales,  which  were  frequent,  were  usually  made  to  cloisters  and 
ecclesiastical  establishments,  for  the  condition  of  Church  slaves  \vas 
preferable  to  that  of  other  serfs.  Persons  worsted  in  judicial  duels, 
shipwrecked  sailors,  vagrants,  strangers,  criminals  unable  to  pay  the 
money-bote  imposed  on  them,  were  all  deprived  of  freedom  ;  but  the 
prolific  source  of  slavery  was  war.  Prisoners  were  almost  univer 
sally  reduced  to  servitude.  A  free  woman  who  intermarried  with  a 
slave,  condemned  herself  and  offspring  to  perpetual  bondage.  The 
number  of  slaves  throughout  the  Netherlands  was  very  large;  the 
number  belonging  to  the  Bishopric  of  Utrecht,  enormous."  (Ib. 
pp.  32-3.) 

12* 


274  MOTLEY. 

Tracing  the  progress  of  society,  Mr.  Motley  gives  the  following 
masterly  sketch :  "  The  Crusades,"  saith  he,  "made  great  improve 
ment  in  the  condition  of  the  serfs.  He  who  became  a  soldier  of  the 
Cross,  was  free  on  his  return,  and  many  were  adventurous  enough  to 
purchase  liberty  at  so  honorable  a  price.  Many  others  were  sold  or 
mortgaged  by  the  crusading  knights,  desirous  of  converting  their 
property  into  gold,  before  embarking  upon  their  enterprise.  The 
purchasers  or  mortgagees  were  in  general  churches  or  convents,  so 
that  the  slaves  thus  alienated  obtained  at  least  a  preferable  servitude. 
The  place  of  the  absent  serfs  was  supplied  with  free  labor,  so  that 
agricultural  and  mechanical  occupations,  now  devolving  on  a  more 
elevated  class,  became  less  degrading,  and,  in  process  of  time,  opened 
an  ever-widening  sphere  for  the  industry  and  progress  of  freemen. 
Thus  a  people  began  to  exist.  It  was,  however,  a  miserable  people, 
with  personal  but  no  civil  rights  whatever.  Their  condition,  although 
better  than  servitude,  was  almost  desperate."  (Vol.  1,  p.  33-4.) 

And  the  change  which  gradually  brought  about  the  general  decline 
of  the  feudal  system  of  vassalage,  is  rightly  stated  by  Mr.  Motley  to 
have  been  not  religion  but  commerce.  "  In  the  fifteenth  century," 
saith  he,  "  commerce  had  converted  slaves  into  freemen,  freemen  into 
burghers,  and  the  burghers  were  daily  acquiring  a  larger  hold  upon 
the  government."  (Ib.  p.  42.) 

And  to  prove,  still  further,  how  little  the  change  had  to  do  with 
the  idea  that  slavery  was  inconsistent  with  religion,  we  find  the  fol 
lowing  historical  fact,  a  hundred  years  later.  At  the  battle  of  Le- 
panto,  in  A.D.  1545,  our  author  states  correctly  that  "the  Turks 
taken  prisoners  were  made  slaves  to  the  victorious  Spaniards." 

"  The  Turkish  slaves,"  saith  he,  "  were  divided  among  the  victors 
in  the  proportion  of  one  half  to  Philip,  and  one  half  to  the  Pope  and 
Venice.  Don  John  received,  as  a  present,  one  hundred  and  seventy, 
four  slaves.  Alexander  of  Parma  received  thirty  slaves ;  Requesens 
thirty.  To  each  general  of  infantry  was  assigned  six  slaves ;  to  each 
colonel,  four  ;  to  each  ship's  captain,  one.  The  number  of  slaves  in 
chains  allotted  to  Philip  was  3600.  Seven  thousand  two  hundred 
Turkish  slaves,  therefore,  at  least,  were  divided  among  Christians." 
(Dutch  Republic,  v.  3.  p.  140,  in  note.) 

These  extracts  serve  to  demonstrate  the  universal  judgment  of 
Christendom,  that  there  was  no  sin  in  holding  slaves.  In  their  treat 
ment  there  might  be,  and  doubtless  was,  an  abundance  of  sin.  And 


MOTLEY.  275 

amongst  fallen  creatures  like  ourselves,  there  is  no  relation  of  society 
in  which  we  are  not  compelled  to  say.  the  same.  It  is  the  result  of 
Christianity  to  improve  the  administration  of  all  the  relations  of  life, 
by  bringing  mankind  under  the  government  of  heaven.  And  slavery 
was  thus  improved,  among  the  rest.  But  to  abolish  it  was  another 
matter,  which  belonged  to  the  State,  and  not  to  the  Church.  Hence 
we  rind  that  the  Church  has  never  meddled  with  it,  because  the 
Church  is  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  which  is  "not  of  this  world." 
And  therefore  she  leaves  the  State  to  manage  its  temporal  interests 
in  its  own  way,  always  willing  to  "  render  unto  Caesar  the  things  that 
be  Caesar's,"  while  she  "  renders  unto  God  the  things  that  be  God's." 


276  HARGKAVE. 


CHAPTER    XL. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  celebrated  case  of  the  negro  Som 
erset,  as  you  probably  know,  produced,  in  the  year  1772,  a  new  era 
of  thought  in  England  on  the  subject  of  slavery;  and  doubtless  aided 
powerfully,  under  the  great  authority  of  Lord  Mansfield,  to  attach 
many  influential  minds  to  the  side  of  Wilberforce,  in  his  subsequent 
assault  upon  the  slave-trade. 

On  the  side  of  the  negro,  who  claimed  his  freedom  from  West-In 
dian  slavery  on  the  ground  that  his  master  had  brought  him  to  Eng 
land,  where  slavery  was  no  longer  known,  the  eminent  lawyer  Har- 
grave,  with  others,  was  engaged,  and  his  written  argument  is  in  the 
State  Trials.  (Vol.  11  and  12,  app.  p.  340.)  From  this  very  learned 
and  interesting  specimen  of  legal  and  historical  research,  I  shall  ex 
tract  another  testimony  which  well  deserves  attention.  Of  course 
you  will  remember  on  which  side  this  accomplished  jurist  was  re 
tained. 

"  Notwithstanding,"  saith  Mr.  Hargrave,  "  the  force  of  the  reasons 
against  the  allowance  of  domestic  slavery,  there  are  civilians  of  great 
credit  who  insist  on  its  utility.  This  opinion  is  favored  by  Puffen- 
dorf,  and  Ulricus  Huberus.  In  the  dissertation  on  slavery  prefixed 
to  Potgiesserus  on  the  German  law,  De  Statu  Servorum,  the  opinion 
is  examined  minutely  and  defended." 

u  The  great  origin  of  slavery  is  captivity  in  war,  though  sometimes 
it  has  been  commenced  by  contract.  It  has  been  a  question  much 
agitated,  whether  either  of  these  foundations  of  slavery  is  consistent 
with  natural  justice.  It  would  be  engaging  in  too  large  a  field  of  inquiry 
to  attempt  reasoning  on  the  general  lawfulness  of  slavery.  I  trust, 
too  that  the  liberty  for  which  I  am  contending  does  not  require  such 
a  disquisition,  and  am  impatient  to  reach  that  part  of  my  argument 
in  which  I  hope  to  prove  slavery  reprobated  by  the  law  of  England 
as  an  inconvenient  thing.  Here,  therefore,  I  shall  only  refer  to  some 


HARGRAVE.  277 

of  the  most  eminent  writers,  who  have  examined  how  far  slavery, 
founded  on  captivity  or  contract,  is  conformable  to  the  law  of  nature, 
and  shall  just  hint  at  the  reasons  which  influence  their  several  opin 
ions." 

"The  ancient  writers  suppose  the  right  of  killing  an  enemy  van 
quished  in  a  just  war,  and  thence  infer  the  right  of  enslaving  him. 
In  this  opinion,  founded,  as  I  presume,  on  the  idea  of  punishing  the  en 
emy  for  his  injustice,  they  are  followed  by  Albericus  Gentilis,  Grotius, 
Puffendorf,  BynTcersJioecTc,  and  many  others.  But  in  The  Spirit  of 
Laws  (Montesquieu)  the  right  of  killing  is  denied,  except  in  case  of  ab 
solute  necessity,  and  for  self-preservation.  However,  when  a  country 
is  conquered,  the  author  seems  to  admit  the  conqueror's  right  of  en 
slaving  for  a  short  time,  that  is,  till  the  conquest  is  effectually  secured. 
Dr.  Rutherford,  not  satisfied  with  the  right  of  killing  a  vanquished 
enemy,  infers  the  right  of  enslaving  him  from  the  conqueror's  right  to 
a  reparation  in  damages  for  the  expenses  of  the  war.  The  lawfulness 
of  slavery  by  contract  is  assented  to  by  Grotius  and  Puffendorf, 
who  found  themselves  on  the  maintenance  of  the  slave,  which  is  the 
consideration  moving  from  the  master." 

"But  however  reasonable  it  may  be  to  doubt  the  justice  of  domes 
tic  slavery,  however  convinced  we  may  be  of  its  ill  effects,  it  must  be 
confessed  that  the  practice  is  ancient,  and  has  been  almost  universal. 
Its  beginning  may  be  dated  from  the  remotest  period,  in  which  there 
are  any  traces  of  the  history  of  mankind.  It  commenced  in  the  bar 
barous  state  of  society,  and  was  retained,  even  when  men  were  far 
advanced  in  civilization.  The  nations  of  antiquity  most  famous  for 
countenancing  the  system  of  domestic  slavery,  were  the  Jews,  the 
Greeks,  the  Romans,  and  the  ancient  Germans,  amongst  all  of  whom 
it  prevailed,  but  in  various  degrees  of  severity.  By  the  ancient  Ger 
mans  it  was  continued  in  the  countries  they  overran ;  and  so  was 
transmitted  to  the  various  kingdoms  and  states  which  arose  in  Europe 
out  of  the  ruins  of  the  Roman  Empire.  At  length,  however,  it  fell 
into  decline  in  mos-t  parts  of  Europe.  The  history  of  its  decline  in 
Europe  has  been  traced  by  many  eminent  writers,  particularly  Bodin, 
Albericus  Gentilis,  Potgiesserus,  Dr.  Robertson,  and  Mr.  Millar.  It 
is  sufficient  here  to  say  that  this  great  change  began  in  Spain,  accord 
ing  to  Bodin,  about  the  end  of  the  eighth  century,  and  was  become 
general  before  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century.  Bartolus,  the 
most  famed  commentator  on  the  Civil  Law,  in  that  period,  represents 


278  HARGBAVE. 

slavery  as  in  disuse,  and  the  succeeding  commentators  hold  much  the 
same  language.  However,  they  must  be  understood  with  many  re 
strictions  and  exceptions,  and  not  to  mean  that  slavery  was  completely 
and  universally  abolished  in  Europe.  Some  modern  civilians,  not 
sufficiently  attending  to  this  circumstance,  rather  too  hastily  repre 
hend  their  predecessors  for  representing  slavery  as  disused  in  Europe. 
The  truth  is  that  the  ancient  species  of  slavery,  by  frequent  emanci 
pations,  became  greatly  diminished  in  extent,  the  remnant  of  it  was 
considerably  abated  in  severity ;  and  the  disuse  of  the  practice  of 
enslaving  captives  taken  in  the  wars  between  Christian  powers,  as 
sisted  in  preventing  the  future  increase  of  domestic  slavery." 

"Such  was  the  expiring  state  of  domestic  slavery  in  Europe  at  the 
commencement  of  the  sixteenth  century,  when  the  discovery  of 
America  and  of  the  western  and  eastern  coasts  of  Africa  gave  occa 
sion  to  the  introduction  of  a  new  species  of  slavery.  It  took  its  rise 
from  the  Portuguese,  who,  in  order  to  supply  the  Spaniards  with 
persons  able  to  sustain  the  fatigue  of  cultivating  their  new  posses 
sions  in  America,  particularly  the  islands,  opened  a  trade  between 
Africa  and  America  for  the  sale  of  negro  slaves.  This  disgraceful 
commerce  in  the  human  species  is  said  to  have  begun  in  the  year 
1508,  when  the  first  importation  of  negro  slaves  was  made  into  His- 
paniola  from  the  Portuguese  settlements  on  the  western  coasts  of 
Africa.  In  1540  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  endeavored  to  stop  the 
progress  of  the  negro  slavery,  by  orders  that  all  slaves  in  the  Ameri 
can  isles  should  be  made  free  ;  and  they  were  accordingly  manumit 
ted  by  Lagasca,  the  governor  of  the  country,  on  condition  of  contin 
uing  to  labor  for  their  masters.  But  this  attempt  proved  unsuccess 
ful,  and  on  Lagasca's  return  to  Spain,  domestic  slavery  revived  and 
flourished  as  before.  The  expedient  of  having  slaves  for  labor  in 
America  was  not  long  peculiar  to  the  Spaniards,  being  afterwards 
adopted  by  the  other  Europeans  as  they  acquired  possessions  there. 
In  consequence  of  this  general  practice,  negroes  are  become  a  very 
considerable  article  in  the  commerce  between  Africa  and  America, 
and  domestic  slavery  has  taken  so  deep  a  root  in  most  of  our  Ameri 
can  colonies,  as  well  as  in  those  of  other  nations,  that  there  is  little 
probability  of  our  seeing  it  generall}'  suppressed." 

"The  law  of  England,"  continues  Mr.  Hargrave,  "never  recognized 
any  species  of  domestic  slavery  except  the  ancient  one  of  villenage, 
now  expired ;  and  has  sufficiently  provided  against  the  introduction 


HARGRAVE.  279 

of  a  new  slavery  under  the  name  of  villenage,  or  any  other  denomina 
tion  whatever." 

"  The  condition  of  a  villein  had  most  of  the  incidents  belonging  to 
slavery  in  general.  His  service  was  uncertain,  and  indeterminate, 
such  as  his  lord  thought  fit  to  require — he  was  liable  to  beating, 
imprisonment,  and  every  other  chastisement  his  lord  could  devise, 
except  killing  and  maiming.  He  was  incapable  of  acquiring  property 
for  his  own  benefit,  the  rule  being,  quicquid  acquisitur  servo, 
acquisitur  domino.  He  was  himself  the  subject  of  property ;  as 
such  saleable  and  transmissable.  If  he  was  a  villein  regardant,  he 
passed  with  the  manor  or  land  to  which  he  was  annexed,  but  might 
be  severed,  at  the  pleasure  of  his  lord.  If  he  was  a  villein  in  gross, 
he  was  an  hereditament  or  a  chattel  real  according  to  his  lord's  inter 
est,  being  descendible  to  the  heir  when  the  lord  was  absolute  owner, 
and  transmissible  to  the  executor  when  the  lord  had  only  a  term  of 
years.  Lastly,  the  slavery  extended  to  the  issue  if  both  parents  were 
villeins,  or  if  the  father  only  was  a  villein ;  our  law  deriving  the  con 
dition  of  the  child  from  that  of  the  father,  contrary  to  the  Roman 
law,  in  which  the  rule  was,  Partus  sequitur  ventrem." 

"  The  origin  of  villenage  is  principally  to  be  derived  from  the  wars 
between  our  British,  Saxon,  Danish,  and  Norman  ancestors,  whilst 
they  were  contending  for  the  possession  of  the  country." 

"After  the  Conquest,  many  things  concurred  happily,  first,  to 
check  the  progress  of  domestic  slavery  in  England,  and  finally  to 
suppress  it.  The  cruel  custom  of  enslaving  captives  in  war  being 
abolished,  from  that  time  the  accession  of  a  new  race  of  villeins  was 
prevented ;  and  the  humanity,  policy  and  necessity  of  the  times  were 
continually  wearing  out  the  ancient  race.  Sometimes,  no  doubt, 
manumissions  were  freely  granted,  but  they  probably  were  much 
oftener  extorted  during  the  rage  of  the  civil  wars,  so  frequent  before 
the  reign  of  Henry  VII.,  about  the  forms  of  the  constitution  or  the 
successions  to  the  crown.  Another  cause  which  greatly  contributed 
to  the  extinction  of  villenage,  was  the  discouragement  of  it  by  the 
courts  of  justice.  They  always  presumed  in  favor  of  liberty,  throw 
ing  the  onus  probandi  upon  the  lord.  And  manumissions  were  in 
ferred  from  the  slightest  circumstances  of  mistake  or  negligence  in 
the  lord,  from  every  act  or  omission  which  legal  refinement  could 
strain  into  an  acknowledgment  of  the  villein's  liberty.  I  shall  not 
attempt  to  follow  villenage  in  the  several  stages  of  its  decline,  it  being 


280  HARGRAVE. 

sufficient  to  mention  the  time  of  its  extinction,  which,  as  all  agree, 
happened  about  the  latter  end  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  or  soon  after  the 
accession  of  James.  From  the  fifteenth  of  James  L,  being  more  than 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago,  the  claim  of  villenage  has  not  been 
heard  in  our  courts  of  justice:  and  nothing  can  be  more  notorious, 
than  that  the  race  of  persons  who  were  once  the  objects  of  it,  was 
about  that  time  completely  worn  out  by  the  continued  and  united 
operation  of  death  and  manumissions." 

The  conclusion  of  Mr.  Hargrave  was,  that  "  the  law  of  England 
excludes  every  slavery  not  commencing  in  England,  every  slavery, 
though  commencing  there,  not  being  ancient  and  immemorial.  Vil 
lenage  is  the  only  slavery  which  can  possibly  answer  to  such  a 
description,  and  that  has  long  expired  by  the  deaths  and  emancipa 
tions  of  those  who  were  once  the  objects  of  it.  Consequently  there 
is  now  no  slavery  which  can  be  lawful  in  England,  until  the  legisla 
ture  shall  interfere  to  make  it  so." 

Lord  Mansfield  decided  the  case  in  accordance  with  this  argument, 
as  you  doubtless  know,  and  the  slave  was  pronounced  to  be  a  free 
man.  But  I  have  quoted  so  largely  from  Mr.  Hargrave,  in  order  to 
show  the  perfect  accordance  of  his  statements  with  the  position  which 
I  have  maintained. 

For  he  does  not  say  one  word  about  the  sinfulness  of  slaveholding, 
nor  claim  any  action  of  the  Church  against  it,  as  being  inconsistent 
with  religion  or  morality.  He  admits  that  the  great  majority  of  the 
most  eminent  writers  were  in  favor  of  it  on  the  ground  of  natural  jus 
tice.  He  attributes  its  extinction  in  England,  not  to  any  direct 
opposition  by  Church  or  State,  but  to  its  gradual  decay,  by  death 
and  manumission ;  and  while  he  contemplates  the  establishment  of 
negro  slavery  in  the  colonies  as  a  settled  practice,  he  contents  him 
self  with  opposing  its  introduction  into  England  as  an  inconvenient 
thing,  not  warranted  by  law,  nor  agreeable  to  modern  usage,  since 
slavery  had  ceased  to  exist  there,  in  any  form,  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years  before. 


TREATY  OF  UTRECHT.  281 


CHAPTER    XLL 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER:  The  public  feeling  in  England,  with 
respect  to  negro  slavery,  at  the  time  when  our  Constitution  was 
established,  is  set  forth  with  great  ability  in  a  manuscript  defense  of 
the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott,  which 
has  been  sent  to  me  by  a  friend.  And  from  this  I  shall  take  a  few 
additional  facts,  in  corroboration  of  the  preceding  statements. 

The  treaty  of  Utrecht,  which  crowned  the  victories  of  Maryborough, 
in  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne,  A.D.  1713,  was  distinguished  by  a  spe 
cial  regard  to  the  slave-trade,  securing  to  the  English  African  com 
pany  a  monopoly  in  the  introduction  of  negroes  into  the  several  ports 
of  Spanish  America,  for  the  term  of  thirty  years.  And  the  first 
Article  of  this  treaty  stipulated  that  this  company  should  bring  into 
the  West-Indies  one  hundred  and  forty-four  thousand  negroes, 
within  that  period,  being  at  the  rate  of  four  thousand  eight  hundred 
in  every  year,  one  fourth  part  of  the  commercial  profits  being  re 
served  to  the  King  of  Spain,  and  another  fourth  part  to  the  Queen 
of  England.  The  negro  race  was  then  held  to  be  a  proper  subject 
of  commerce  by  the  universal  sentiment  of  Europe.  The  transferring 
them  from  their  deplorable  savage  state  to  the  mastership  of  civilized 
men,  was  considered  to  be  a  benefit  of  the  highest  value  to  the  ne 
groes  themselves.  And  had  it  been  otherwise,  the  "  good  Queen 
Anne,"  who  was  certainly  a  religious  and  excellent  woman,  would 
never  have  been  an  actual  partner  in  the  trade  of  the  English  African 
company. 

The  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  on  this  subject  were  kept 
in  view  by  the  subsequent  treaties,  in  the  reigns  of  George  I.  and 
George  II.,  clearly  proving  that  there  was  no  change  of  English  sen 
timent  down  to  1749,  when  the  monopoly  of  the  English  company 
having  expired,  the  slave-trade  was  thrown  open  to  every  British 
subject  who  chose  to  embark  in  it.  This  was  done  by  statute  twen 
ty-third  George  Second,  chapter  thirty-one.  And  the  result  produced 


282  STATUTE  OF  GEORGE   III. 

so  great  an  influx  of  negroes  into  the  colonies,  that  the  Legislature  of 
South-Carolina  passed  an  act  prohibiting  the  further  importation. 
But  the  British  government  disallowed  this  act,  and  reprimanded  the 
governor  for  having  assented  to  it. 

The  American  Revolution  having  been  successfully  accomplished, 
and  peace  proclaimed  in  1783,  we  find  the  British  Parliament  passing 
another  act,  granting  certain  privileges  of  trade  to  the  ports  of  the 
West-Indies.  The  fourth  section  of  this,  (statute  twenty-seven, 
George  Third,  chapter  twenty-seven,  1787,)  authorizes  the  exporting 
of  merchandise  from  the  English  islands  to  any  foreign  colony,  and 
in  this  merchandise  there  is  special  mention  of  ruin  and  negroes. 
This  was  thirteen  years  after  the  decision  of  Lord  Mansfield  in  the 
case  of  Somerset,  and  only  two  years  before  the  adoption  of  our  pre 
sent  Constitution. 

In  the  year  1773,  when  that  famous  case  was  decided,  there  were 
no  less  than  fourteen  thousand  negro  slaves  in  London  alone.  And  the 
opinion  of  Lord  Mansfield  was  denied  to  be  law  by  several  great 
authorities,  Lord  Hardwicke  and  Lord  Stowell  being  clearly  opposed 
to  it.  We  have  seen  the  statement  of  Mr.  Wilberforce,  that  all  the 
lawyers  were  against  him,  and  we  know  that  it  cost  more  than 
twenty  years  of  struggle  before  the  slave-trade  was  abolished,  while 
it  was  not  until  1833  that  emancipation  was  granted  to  the  British 
slaves  in  the  West-Indies,  through  the  pressure,  as  the  historian 
Alison  states,  of  the  new  popular  feeling. 

The  success  of  the  Republican  theory  in  the  establishment  of  the 
United  States  was  undoubtedly  the  first  great  step  which  led  the 
minds  of  men  in  this  direction.  But  that  went  no  further  than  the 
abolition  of  the  slave-trade,  leaving  the  domestic  institution  alone,  and 
even  providing  for  its  protection.  The  great  blow  against  slavery 
was  reserved  for  the  French  Revolution,  \vhich  freed  the  negroes  of 
St.  Domingo,  and  led  to  the  horrid  massacre  of  the  whites,  and  threw 
all  Europe  into  alarm  and  consternation  by  the  conflicts  which  arose 
in  every  quarter,  between  popular  rights  and  the  old  systems  of  mon-' 
archy.  In  all  this  the  Church  of  Christ  took  no  part,  save  by  prayer 
and  loyal  sufferance.  The  atheism  of  France,  which  uprooted  slavery, 
did  not  spare  the  altar.  Liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity  became  the 
new  trinity  which  men  adored,  instead  of  the  God  of  the  Bible.  And 
hanging,  drowning,  and  the  guillotine  were  the  prompt  punishment 
of  those  who  refused  to  bow  down  and  worship  them. 


PUBLIC  OPINION".  283 

That  the  Church  of  England  held  slavery  to  be  perfectly  lawful  in 
itself,  as  well  as  the  Church  of  Rome  and  all  the  Christian  denomina 
tions  of  Europe  and  America,  through  the  whole  period  of  their  his 
tory,  down  to  the  end  of  the  last  century,  and  far  into  the  present,  is 
therefore  as  incontrovertible  as  any  fact  can  be.  The  bishops  of  that 
Church  saw  no  sin  in  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  to  which  the  religious 
Queen  Anne  was  a  party.  They  concurred  in  the  Act  of  Parliament 
under  George  the  Third,  \\hich  regarded  the  negroes  as  lawful  mer 
chandise.  The  Puritans  of  New-England  sold  the  Indians  as  slaves, 
and  were  the  chief  importers  of  the  Africans  for  the  Southern  market. 
Even  the  Quakers  of  Pennsylvania  had  slaves,  and  William  Penn  was 
a  slaveholder,  though  that  was  the  first  State  which  passed  an  act  of 
gradual  abolition,  and  this  estimable  people  have  been  among  the 
most  ardent  and  constant  friends  of  the  measure.  Their  principles, 
however,  were  in  no  substantial  respect  at  variance  with  my  own. 
They  did  not  denounce  slavery  as  a  sin  in  itself,  and  the  "  sum  of  all 
villainies."  They  did  not  denounce  the  Constitution  as  "a  covenant 
with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell."  They  did  not  insist  on  im 
mediate  emancipation.  And,  above  all,  they  sought  to  accomplish 
their  object  only  by  the  use  of  kind  persuasion  and  friendly  argument, 
on  the  ground  of  a  wise  expediency,  without  bringing  it  into  the  region 
of  party  politics,  without  kindling  hatred,  discord,  and  strife  between 
brethren,  and  with  that  love  of  "  peace  and  good-will  to  men  "  which 
has  so  honorably  marked  their  character. 


284  THE  ENGLISH  POOR. 


CHAPTER   XLII. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  I  now  come  to  consider  the  treatment 
of  the  Southern  slaves,  which,  in  the  popular  mind,  constitutes  the 
main  ground  of  the  horror  expressed  by  so  many  persons  with  regard 
to  the  institution.  And  here,  I  trust  that  I  may  claim  as  strong  an 
antipathy  to  all  cruelty  and  oppression,  as  becomes  the  character  of  a 
Chri-stian  minister.  But  this  charge  of  cruelty  concerns  the  religious 
consistency  of  thousands  amongst  my  brethren  :  men  who,  though  now 
unhappily  separated  from  us  by  this  deplorable  war,  are  yet  belong 
ing  to  the  same  spiritual  fraternity.  Justice  is  due  to  those  slave 
holders,  as  well  as  to  the  slaves.  I  only  ask  that  the  evidence  brought 
against  them  shall  be  tested  fairly,  by  the  same  rules  which  apply  to 
human  conduct  in  general.  And  this  can  only  be  done  by  a  com 
parison  of  the  evils  which  the  slaves  suffer  from  their  masters,  with 
those  to  which  the  laboring  classes  are  liable  in  the  state  of  freedom. 

The  Journal  of  Mrs.  Kemble,  during  her  residence  on  the  Georgia 
plantation  of  her  husband,  is  one  of  the  most  popular  books  on  the 
evils  of  negro  slavery ;  and  deservedly  so,  not  only  from  its  literary 
merits,  and  the  wide-spread  reputation  of  the  writer,  but  mainly 
because  it  deals  in  facts,  with  actual  knowledge,  on  the  spot,  of  the 
practical  results  of  the  institution.  And  yet,  passing  from  its  perusal 
to  the  recent  work  of  Joseph  Kay,  Esq.,  on  the  social  condition  of  the 
people  of  England,  no  intelligent  and  candid  mind  can  avoid  the  con 
viction  that  her  picture  of  misery  and  degradation  amongst  the  slaves 
falls  far  short  of  the  delineations  of  brutalized  licentiousness  and  de 
basement  amongst  the  lower  class  of  English  freemen.  I  shall  make 
a  copious  selection  of  extracts  from  this  sadly  interesting  book,  to 
prove  the  assertion. 

"I  speak  it,"  saith  Mr.  Kay,  "with  sorrow  and  with  shame,  but 
with  not  the  less  confidence,  that  our  peasantry  are  more  ignorant, 
more  demoralized,  less  capable  of  helping  themselves,  and  more  pau 
perized,  than  those  of  any  country  in  Europe,  if  we  except  Russia, 


THE  ENGLISH  POOK.  285 

Turkey,  South  Italy,  and  some  parts  of  the  Austrian  Empire."  (p.  24, 
Harper's  New-York  ed.) 

"  The  laborer  has  no  longer  any  connection  with  the  land  he  culti 
vates  ;  he  has  no  stake  in  the  country  ;  he  has  nothing  to  lose,  noth 
ing  to  defend,  and  nothing  to  hope  for,"  (p.  16.)  "His  position  is 
one  of  hopeless  and  irremedial  dependence.  The  work-house  stands 
near  him,  pointing  out  his  dismal  fate  if  he  falls  one  step  lower," 
(p.  17.)  "  In  the  civilized  world  there  are  few  sadder  spectacles  than 
the  present  contrast  in  Great  Britain  of  unbounded  wealth  and  luxury, 
with  the  starvation  of  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands,  crowded  into 
cellars  and  dens,  without  ventilation  or  light,  compared  with  which 
the  wigwam  of  the  Indian  is  a  palace.  Misery,  famine,  brutal 
degradation,  in  the  neighborhood  of  stately  mansions  which  ring 
with  gayety  and  dazzle  with  pomp  and  unbounded  profusion,  shock 
us  as  no  other  wretchedness  does. — It  is  a  striking  fact  that  the 
private  charity  of  England,  though  almost  incredible,  makes  little  im 
pression  on  this  mass  of  misery,"  (p.  28.) 

The  writer  gives  the  following  statement  on  the  amount  of  pauper 
ism,  which  is  truly  astounding  : 

"Before  the  enactment  of  the  new  poor-law,"  saith  he,  "we  were 
expending  annually  between  six  and  seven  millions  of  pounds  sterling 
for  the  relief  of  abject  pauperism  in  England  and  Wales  alone.  Since 
then,  we  have  been  expending,  in  the  same  cause,  between  four  and 
five  millions  per  annum  —  without  reckoning  the  vast  sums  which 
have  been  sunk  in  the  administration  of  the  poor-law  in  the  different 
Unions,  or  the  immense  sums  which  have  been  given  away  annually 
by  charitable  individuals  and  societies.  All  this,  be  it  remembered, 
has  been  required  to  alleviate  the  miserable  condition  of  our  laboring 
population,  and  to  keep  crowds  from  actual  starvation.  Their  inde 
pendence  is  destroyed ;  they  can  not  live  unless  they  depend  upon 
the  charity  of  the  higher  classes,"  (p.  29.) 

Our  author  proceeds  to  show,  from  a  carefully  prepared  table,  the 
comparative  increase  of  crime  in  the  agricultural  districts.  "The 
proportional  amount  of  crime  to  population,"  saith  he,  "in  1841  and 
1847  was  greater  in  almost  all  the  agricultural  counties  of  England 
than  it  was  in  the  manufacturing  and  mining  districts."  This  table 
"  also  shows  how  fearfully  the  amount  of  crime  is  increasing,in  the 
agricultural  districts  of  Westmoreland,  Lincoln,  Cambridge,  Hunting 
don,  Leicestershire,  Rutland,  Bedfordshire,  Buckinghamshire,  Wor- 


286  THE   ENGLISH  POOR. 

cestershire,  and  Devonshire." — "  Does  not  this  show  that  the  peas 
ants  of  England  must  be  subjected  to  a  singularly  demoralizing  sys 
tem,  to  produce  so  strange,  so  almost  incredible  a  result?"  (p.  44-5.) 

He  next  passes  on  to  the  "  awfully  wretched  state  of  the  children 
of  London,"  and  our  author  observes  that  "  although  this  singular 
account  refers  to  London  alone,  it  does  in  reality  give  a  very  correct 
picture  "  of  other  cities.  "  In  the  towns  of  Lancashire,"  saith  he, 
"  and  in  all  the  larger  of  the  manufacturing  and  provincial  towns, 
the  life  and  character  of  an  equal  proportion  of  the  whole  number  of 
the  children  is  precisely  similar  to  that  of  the  juvenile  population  of 
the  back  streets  of  London,"  (p.  45.) 

They  maybe  seen  everywhere ;  "  but  in  Lambeth  and  Westminster 
we  find  the  most  flagrant  traces  of  their  swarming  activity.  There 
the  foul  and  dismal  passages  are  thronged  with  children  of  both 
sexes,  and  of  every  age  from  three  to  thirteen.  Though  wan  and  hag 
gard,  they  are  singularly  vivacious,  and  engaged  in  every  sort  of  occu 
pation  but  that  which  \vould  be  beneficial  to  themselves  and  credit 
able  to  the  neighborhood.  Their  appearance  is  wild ;  the  matted  hair, 
the  disgusting  filth,  that  renders  necessary  a  closer  inspection,  before 
the  flesh  can  be  discerned  between  the  rags  which  hang  about  it,  and 
the  barbarian  freedom  from  all  superintendence  and  restraint,  fill  the 
mind  of  a  novice  in  these  things  with  perplexity  and  dismay.  Visit 
those  regions  in  the  summer,  and  you  are  overwhelmed  with  the  ex 
halations  ;  visit  them  in  the  winter,  and  you  are  shocked  by  the 
spectacle  of  hundreds  shivering  in  apparel  that  would  be  scanty  in 
the  tropics ;  many  are  all  but  naked  ;  those  that  are  clothed  are  gro 
tesque  ;  the  trowsers,  when  they  have  them,  seldom  pass  the  knee ; 
the  tail-coats  very  frequently  trail  below  the  heels.  In  this  guise 
they  run  about  the  streets,  and  line  the  banks  of  the  river  at  low 
water,  seeking  coals,  sticks,  corks,  for  nothing  comes  amiss  as 
treasure  trove,"  (pp.  60-1.) 

"  A  large  proportion  of  those  who  dwell  in  the  capital,  and  all  the 
larger  towns  of  the  British  empire,  are  crammed  into  regions  of  filth 
and  darkness,  the  ancient  but  not  solitary  reign  of  the  newts  and 
toads." 

"  Here  are  the  receptacles  of  the  species  we  investigate  ;  here  they 
are  spawned,  and  here  they  perish.  Can  their  state  be  a  matter  of 
wonder?  We  have  penetrated  alleys  terminating  in  a  cul-de-sac, 
long  and  narrow,  like  a  tobacco-pipe,  where  air  and  sunshine  were 


THE  ENGLISH  POOR.  287 

never  known.  On  one  side  rose  walls  several  feet  in  height,  blacken 
ed  with  damp  and  slime  ;  on  the  other  side  stood  the  dwellings,  still 
more  revolting,  while  the  breadth  of  the  wet  and  bestrewed  passage 
would  by  no  means  allow  us  the  full  expansion  of  our  arms  !  We 
have  waited  at  the  entrance  of  another,  of  similar  character  and  di 
mensions,  but  forbidden  by  the  force  and  pungency  of  the  odors  to 
examine  its  recesses.  The  novelty  of  a  visit  from  persons  clad  like 
gentlemen,  gave  the  hope  that  we  were  official ;  and  several  women, 
haggard,  rough,  and  exasperated,  surrounded  us  at  once,  imploring 
us  to  order  the  removal  of  the  filth,  which  had  poisoned  their  tene 
ments,  and  to  grant  them  a  supply  of  water,  from  which  they  had 
been  debarred  for  many  days.  Pass  to  another  district,  you  may 
find  it  less  confined ;  but  there  you  will  see,  flowing  before  each  hovel, 
and  within  a  few  feet  of  it,  a  broad,  black,  uncovered  drain,  exhaling 
at  every  point  the  most  unwholesome  vapors.  If  there  be  not  a 
drain,  there  is  a  stagnant  pool ;  touch  either  with  your  stick,  and  the 
mephitic  mass  will  yield  up  its  poisonous  gas  like  the  coruscations 
of  soda-water." 

"  The  children  sit  along  these  depositories  of  death,  or  roam  through 
the  retired  courts,  in  which  the  abominations  of  years  have  been 
suffered  to  accumulate.  Here  reigns  a  melancholy  silence,  seldom 
broken  but  by  an  irritated  scold,  or  a  pugnacious  drunkard.  The 
pale,  discolored  faces  of  the  inhabitants,  their  shriveled  forms,  their 
abandoned  exterior,  recall  the  living  skeletons  of  thePontine  marshes, 
and  sufficiently  attest  the  presence  of  a  secret  agency,  hostile  to  every 
physical  and  moral  improvement  of  the  human  race." 

u  The  interior  of  the  dwelling  is  in  strict  keeping ;  the  smaller 
space  of  the  apartments  increasing,  of  course,  the  evils  that  prevail 
without — damp,  darkness,  dirt,  and  foul  air.  Man}r  are  wholly  des 
titute  of  furniture  ;  many  contain  nothing  except  a  table  and  a  chair  ; 
some  few  have  a  common  bed  for  all  ages  and  both  sexes,  but  a  large 
proportion  of  the  denizens  of  these  regions  lie  on  a  heap  of  rags  more 
nasty  than  the  floor  itself.  Happy  is  the  family  that  can  boast  of  a 
single  room  to  itself,  and  in  that  room,  of  a  dry  corner." 

"  The  children  that  survive  the  noxious  influences  and  awful  ne 
glect,  are  thrown,  as  soon  as  they  can  crawl,  to  scramble  in  the  gut 
ter,  and  leave  their  parents  to  amusement  or  business."  .... 

"The  '  duris  ingens  in  rebus  egestas"1  stimulates  these  independent 
urchins  ;  and  at  an  age  when  the  children  of  the  wealthy  would  still 


288  THE  ENGLISH  POOR. 

be  in  leading-strings,  they  are  off,  singly  or  in  parties,  to  beg,  borrow, 
steal,  and  exercise  all  the  cunning  that  want  and  a  love  of  evil  can 
stir  up  in  a  reckless  race." 

"  This  is  a  fair  picture  of  the  state  of  things  in  all  our  larger 
towns,"  (p.  61-3.) 

The  author  gives  a  sad  account  of  what  he  rightly  calls  "  a  very 
singular  and  very  melancholy  proof  of  the  degradation  and  pauperism 
of  a  great  part  of  the  laboring  population.  Large  and  ever-increas 
ing  hordes  of  vagrants  or  wandering  beggars  infest  all  the  highways 
of  England  and  Wales.  These  poor  wretches  are  miserably  clothed, 
filthily  dirty,  covered  with  vermin,  and  generally  very  much  diseas 
ed  ;  sometimes  from  debauchery,  and  sometimes — though  this  would 
appear  to  be  the  exceptional  case — from  the  want  of  food.  These 
vagrants  consist,  in  some  parts  of  the  country,  of  nearly  equal  parts 
of  Irish  and  English ;  while,  in  other  parts,  two  thirds  of  them  are 
Irish,  and  the  other  third  English.  They  are  composed  of  persons 
of  both  sexes,  and  of  all  ages.  Very  few  are  married.  The  women, 
of  whom  there  are  great  numbers,  are  nearly  all  prostitutes.  Each 
man  is  generally  attended  by  one  or  two  such  companions  in  misery 
and  crime." 

"  To  nearly  every  work-house  there  are  attached  what  are  called 
vagrant-wards,  or  buildings  which  are  specially  set  apart  for  the  re 
ception  of  tramps,  such  as  those  I  have  described.  In  some  places, 
such  is  the  filthy  state  of  the  poor  wretches  who  are  admitted  at 
night,  that  it  is  necessary  to  have  the  framework  of  the  beds  white 
washed  every  day.  In  many  places  it  is  found  impossible  to  give 
them  beds,  because  the  tramps  swarm  so  horribly  with  vermin.  In 
those  cases,  a  rug  is  allowed  to  each,  and  the  rug  is  washed  in  the 
morning." 

"  Men  are  kept,  in  order  to  guard  these  foul  receptacles  every 
night,  but  it  is  needless  to  observe  that  nothing  can  prevent  scenes 
which  I  may  not  attempt  to  describe,"  (p.  73-5.)  "The  conduct 
of  the  poor  wretches  is  reported  to  be  bad  in  the  extreme.  They 
are  described  as  being  noisy  and  turbulent ;  as  making  the  wards 
resound  with  the  vilest  songs  and  language ;  as  being  ungrateful  and 
refractory  towards  the  ward-officers,  and  as  having  habits  too  filthy 
and  indecent  to  be  named,"  (p.  76.) 

"  If  I  were  only  to  state,"  saith  our  author,  "  that  16,000  of  such 
poor  wretches  were  wandering  about  our  roads  begging  alms  in  1848, 


THE   ENGLISH  POOR.  289 

I  should  give  no  idea  of  the  magnitude  of  this  plague.  Hitherto,  I 
have  only  spoken  of  those  who  seek  shelter  for  the  night  in  the 
work -house  vagrant-wards.  But  besides  these,  there  are  vast  num 
bers  who  sleep  every  night  in  the  vagrant  lodging-houses  in  the 
towns.  These  lodging-houses,  which  are  to  be  found  in  most  of  our 
towns,  consist  of  long  low  rooms,  filled  with  beds  or  mattresses, 
upon  which  the  vagrants  of  all  ages  and  of  both  sexes  sleep,  two  or 
three  in  one  bed  or  upon  one  mattress.  These  rooms  are  unventi- 
lated,  seldom  cleaned,  filthy  and  close  beyond  comprehension  to  those 
who  have  not  been  into  them.  In  these  dens,  the  vagrants,  pick 
pockets,  beggars,  and,  in  fine,  all  the  houseless  wanderers  of  the 
streets,  sleep,  crowded  together — old  men  and  young  men,  old  women 
and  young  women,  and  children  of  all  ages,  from  the  infant  at  the 
breast,  to  the  boy  who  is  just  ripening  into  the  felon.  The  scenes 
which  take  place  are  horrible.  In  one  bed  sleeps  a  man  with  two 
women  ;  in  another,  a  woman  with  two  men  ;  in  another,  two  or  three 
women  or  men  ;  in  another,  a  poor  mother  and  her  children.  Drunk 
ards,  pickpockets,  prostitutes,  and  beggars,  covered  with  vermin,  are 
packed  in  together.  Foul  songs,  oaths,  drunken  yells,  and  groans 
mingle  every  night  in  one  sad  chorus,  until  sleep  closes  the  eyes  of 
all,"  (p.  79-80.) 

"  One  of  the  city  missionaries,  describing  the  state  of  the  Mint 
district  in  London,  says  :  '  It  is  utterly  impossible  to  describe  the 
scenes  which  are  to  be  witnessed  here,  or  to  set  forth,  in  its  naked 
deformity,  the  awful  characters  sin  here  assumes.  .  .  .  In  Mint 
street  alone,  there  are  nineteen  lodging-houses,  the  majority  of  which 
are  awful  sinks  of  iniquity.  Quarrels  and  fights  are  very  common, 
and  the  cry  of  murder  Is  frequently  heard.  The  public-houses  in 
this  street  are  crowded  to  excess,  especially  in  the  Sabbath  evenings," 
(p.  80-81.) 

"  If  the  nightly  inmates  of  these  dens  are  added  to  the  tramps  who 
seek  lodging  in  the  vagrant-wards  of  the  work-houses,  we  shall  find 
that  there  are  at  least  between  40,000  and  50,000  tramps  daily  in 
festing  our  roads  and  streets,"  (p.  81.) 

Now  all  this  is  revolting  enough,  but  the  next  set  of  facts  which 
this  author  sets  forth  is  still  more  so.  "  Another  sad  symptom  of 
the  condition  of  the  poor,"  saith  he,  "  is  the  use  they  make  of  the 
'  burial  clubs.'  In  some  of  our  towns  the  degradation  of  many  of  the 
poor  is  such,  that  parents  often  cause  the  death  of  their  children  in 
13 


290  THE   BUKIAL   CLUBS. 

order  to  obtain  the  premiums  from  the  societies.  It  appears  that  in 
our  larger  provincial  towns  the  poor  are  in  the  habit  of  entering  their 
children  in  what  are  called  '  burial  clubs.'  A  small  sum  is  paid 
every  year  by  the  parent,  and  this  entitles  him  to  receive  from  three 
to  five  pounds  from  the  club,  on  the  death  of  the  child.  Many  par 
ents  enter  their  children  in  several  clubs.  One  man  in  Manchester 
has  been  known  to  enter  his  child  in  nineteen  different  clubs.  On 
the  death  of  such  a  child,  the  parent  becomes  entitled  to  a  large  sum 
of  money,  and  as  the  burial  of  the  child  does  not  necessarily  cost 
more  than  one  pound  and  ten  shillings,  the  parent  realizes  a  consid 
erable  sum  after  all  the  expenses  are  paid." 

"  It  has  been  clearly  ascertained  that  it  is  a  common  practice 
among  the  more  degraded  classes  of  poor  in  many  of  our  towns,  to 
enter  their  infants  in  these  clubs,  and  then  to  cause  their  death, 
either  by  starvation,  ill-usage,  or  poison !  What  more  horrible 
symptom  of  moral  degradation  can  be  conceived  ?  One's  mind  re 
volts  against  it,  and  would  fain  reject  it  as  a  monstrous  fiction.  But 
alas  !  it  seems  to  be  but  too  true,"  (p.  82.) 

This  awful  statement  is  proved  by  numerous  cases,  which  occupy 
twelve  pages  of  the  book.  And  the  author  concludes  by  saying : 
"  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  great  part  of  the  poorer  classes  of  this 
country  are  sunk  into  such  a  frightful  depth  of  hopelessness,  misery, 
and  utter  moral  degradation,  that  even  mothers  forget  their  affection 
for  their  helpless  little  offspring,  and  kill  them,  as  a  butcher  does  his 
lambs,  in  order  to  make  money  by  the  murder,  and  therewith  to 
lessen  their  pauperism  and  misery,"  (p.  94.) 

Mr.  Kay  passes  on  from  this  terrible  statement  to  the  "great  num 
bers  and  miserable  condition  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  cellars." 

"  In  all  our  larger  towns,"  saith  he,  "  and  especially  in  those  in 
which  manufactures  are  carried  on,  there  are  a  great  number  of  cel 
lars  beneath  the  houses  of  the  small  shopkeepers  and  operatives, 
which  are  inhabited  by  crowds  of  the  poor.  These  rooms  measure, 
in  Liverpool,  from  ten  to  twelve  feet  square.  In  some  towns  they 
are  rather  larger.  They  are  generally  flagged.  The  flags  lie  directly 
upon  the  earth,  and  are  generally  wretchedly  damp.  In  wet  weather 
they  are  very  often  not  dry  for  weeks  together.  Within  a  few  feet 
from  the  windows  rises  the  wall  which  keeps  the  street  from  falling 
in,  darkening  the  gloomy  rooms,  and  preventing  the  sun's  rays  from 
penetrating  into  them." 


THE  CELLARS.  291 

"  Dr.  Duncan,  in  describing  the  cellar-houses  of  the  manufacturing 
districts,  says :  '  The  cellars  are  ten  or  twelve  feet  square,  generally 
flagged,  but  frequently  having  only  the  bare  earth  for  a  floor,  and 
sometimes  less  than  six  feet  in  height.  There  is  frequently  no  win 
dow,  so  that  light  and  air  can  gain  access  to  the  cellar  only  by  the 
door,  the  top  of  which  is  often  not  higher  than  the  level  of  the  street  In 
such  cellars,  ventilation  is  out  of  the  question.  They  are  of  course 
dark,  and,  from  the  defective  drainage,  they  are  very  generally 
damp,"  (pp.  95-6.) 

"  They  have  never  more  than  two,  and  generally  only  one  room 
each,  but  small  as  they  are,  they  are  crowded  to  excess.  It  is  no 
uncommon  thing  for  two  and  three,  and  sometimes  for  four  families, 
to  live  and  sleep  together  in  one  of  these  rooms,  without  any  division 
or  separation  whatever  for  the  different  families  or  sexes.  There  are 
very  few  cellars  where  at  least  two  families  do  not  herd  together  in 
this  manner.  Their  beds  are  made  sometimes  of  a  mattress,  and 
sometimes  of  straw  in  the  corners  of  the  cellar,  and  upon  the  damp, 
cold,  flag  floor ;  and  on  these  miserable  sleeping-places,  the  father, 
mother,  sons,  and  daughters  crowd  together  in  a  state  of  filthy  inde 
cency,  and  much  worse  off  than  the  horses  in  an  ordinary  stable.  In 
these  cellar-houses,  no  distinction  of  sex  and  age  is-  made.  Some 
times  a  man  is  found  sleeping  with  one  woman,  sometimes  with  two 
women,  and  sometimes  with  young  girls ;  sometimes  brothers  and 
sisters  of  the  age  of  eighteen,  nineteen,  and  twenty,  are  found  in  bed 
together,  while  at  other  times  the  husband  and  wife  share  the  bed 
with  all  their  children." 

"  The  poor  creatures  who  inhabit  these  miserable  receptacles  are  of 
the  most  degraded  species ;  they  have  never  learned  to  read ;  have 
never  heard  of  the  existence  of  a  Deity ;  have  never  been  inside  a 
church,  being  scared  from  the  door  by  their  own  filth  and  wretched 
ness,  and  have  scarcely  any  sense  of  a  distinction  between  right  and 
wrong." 

"  I  have  heard  gentlemen  who  have  visited  these  kinds  of  dens  in 
London  say,  that  they  have  found  men  and  women  sleeping  together, 
three  and  four  in  a  single  bed,  that  they  have  not  disturbed  or  shamed 
them  in  the  least  by  discovering  them  in  these  situations,  but  that,  on 
the  contrary,  their  remonstrances  have  l)een  answered  only  ~by  a  laugh 
or  ~by  a  sneer"  (p.  96-7.) 

"In  the  twelve  wards  forming  the  parish  of  Liverpool,  there  are 


292  THE  VILLAGES. 

6294  inhabited  cellars,  containing  20,168  inhabitants,  exclusive  of 
the  inhabited  cellars  in  courts,  of  which  there  are  621,  containing 
probably  2000  inhabitants."  And  these  numbers  Dr.  Duncan  thinks 
are  "  under  the  mark."  "  The  whole  of  the  cellar  population  of  the 
parish,  upwards  of  20,000,  are  absolutely  without  any  place  of  de 
posit  for  their  refuse  matter,"  (p.  97-8.) 

"  But  what,"  continues  our  author,  "  is  the  condition  of  the  houses 
of  the  poor  in  our  towns  and  villages  ?  The  further  we  examine,  the 
more  painful,  disgusting,  and  incredible  does  the  tale  become !" 

"  We  see  on  every  hand  stately  palaces,  to  which  no  country  in  the 
world  offers  any  parallel.  The  houses  of  our  rich  are  more  gorgeous 
and  more  luxurious  than  those  of  any  other  land.  Every  clime  is 
ransacked  to  adorn  them.  The  soft  carpets,  the  heavy  rich  curtains, 
the  luxuriously  easy  couches,  the  beds  of  down,  the  services  of  plate, 
the  numerous  servants,  the  splendid  equipages,  and  all  the  expensive 
objects  of  literature,  science,  and  the  arts,  which  crowd  the  palaces 
of  England,  form  but  items  in  an  ensemble  of  refinement  and  mag 
nificence  which  was  never  imagined  or  approached  in  all  the  splendor 
of  the  ancient  empires.  But  look  beneath  all  this  display  and  lux 
ury,  and  what  do  we  see  there  ?  A  pauperized  and  suffering  people." 

"  To  maintain  show,  we  have  degraded  the  masses,  until  we  have 
created  an  evil  so  vast,  that  we  now  despair  of  ever  finding  a  remedy. 
The  Irish  poor  have  drunk  the  dregs  of  the  cup  of  misery,  and  are 
hardly  kept  from  revolution  by  the  strong  arm  of  the  soldiers  and 
police ;  while  the  English  poor  are  only  saved  from  despair  and  its 
dread  consequences,  by  the  annual  expenditure  of  MANY  MILLIONS  in 
relief,  which  our  own  neglect  and  misgovernment  have  rendered  ne 
cessary,"  (p.  99-100.) 

If  this  dreadful  picture  were  confined  to  the  condition  of  the  poor 
in  the  cities  and  towns,  it  would  be  a  very  melancholy  spectacle. 
But  unhappily  it  extends  to  the  country  at  large.  For  thus  our 
author  proceeds  with  his  sad  narration. 

"Miserable,"  saith  he,  "as  the  habitations  of  a  great  part  of  the 
poor  of  our  towns  are,  the  cottages  and  the  cottage  life  of  the  peas 
ants  are  still  worse,  and,  what  is  more,  they  have  been  for  some  time 
past,  and  still  are,  rapidly  deteriorating.  The  majority  of  the  cot 
tages  are  wretchedly  built,  often  in  very  unhealthy  sites ;  the}r  are 
miserably  small,  and  are  crowded  to  excess ;  they  are  very  low,  sel 
dom  drained,  and  badly  roofed ;  and  they  scarcely  ever  have  any  eel- 


THE  VILLAGES.  293 

lar  or  space  under  the  floor  of  the  lower  rooms.  The  floors  are  formed 
either  of  flags,  which  rest  upon  the  cold,  undrained  ground,  or,  as  is 
often  the  case,  of  nothing  better  than  a  mixture  of  clay  and  lime, 
which  receives,  day  after  day,  and  year  after  year,  water  and  drop 
pings  of  all  kinds,  and  gives  back  pestilential  vapors,  injurious  to  the 
health  of  the  inhabitants.  Such  cottages  are  fit  abodes  for  a  peas 
antry  pauperized  and  demoralized  by  the  utter  hopelessness  of  their 
situation,"  (p.  115-6.) 

"  The  accounts  we  receive  from  all  parts  of  the  country  show  that 
these  miserable  cottages  are  crowded  to  an  extreme,  and  that  the 
crowding  is  progressively  increasing.  People  of  both  sexes,  and  of 
all  ages,  married  and  unmarried,  parents,  brothers,  sisters,  and  strang 
ers,  sleep  in  the  same  rooms  and  often  in  the  same  beds.  Women 
have  been  delivered  in  bed-rooms  crowded  with  men,  young  women, 
and  children,  and  facts  are  witnessed  much  too  horrible  to  be  alluded 
to.  Nor  are  these  solitary  instances,  but  similar  reports  are  given  by 
gentlemen  writing  in  ALL  parts  of  the  country,"  (p.  HV-8.) 

"  The  landlords  are  unwilling  to  increase  the  number  of  the  cottages 
in  the  rural  districts,  because  they  fear  to  increase  the  numbers  of 
the  resident  laboring  population,  and  the  amount  of  their  poor-rates ; 
and  they  are  generally  unwilling,  even  when  they  are  able,  to  spend 
money  in  improving  the  size  or  character  of  the  cottages,  because 
they  know  that  they  can  easily  let  any  of  the  existing  cottages,  no 
matter  how  wretched,  owing  to  the  great  demand  for  house-room." 

"  The  crowding  of  the  cottages  has,  therefore,  of  late,  been  growing 
worse  and  worse.  The  promiscuous  mingling  of  the  sexes  in  the  bed 
rooms  has  been  increasing  very  much,  and  is  productive  of  worse  con 
sequences  every  year.  Adultery  is  the  very  mildest  form  of  the  vast 
amount  of  crime  which  it  is  engendering.  "We  are  told  by  magis 
trates,  clergymen,  surgeons,  and  union  officers,  that  cases  of  incest, 
and  reports  of  other  cases  of  the  same  enormity,  are  becoming  more 
and  more  common"  (p.  119.) 

u  Such  is  the  hideous  social  system  to  which  we  have  subjected  our 
poor,"  (p.  123.) 

The  apathy  with  which  this  matter  is  regarded  by  all  the  parties, 
is  strongly  stated  by  our  author. 

"  One  singular  thing  is,"  saith  he,  "  that  this  state  of  things  has 
existed  so  long,  that  the  poor  have  sunk  lelow  complaining,  and  that 
the  landlords  and  richer  classes  are  quite  surprised,  if  you  talk  to 


294  THE  PEASANTRY. 

them  of  the  miserable  condition  of  the  peasants'  cottages.  They  have 
learned  to  think  it  a  necessary  state  of  things,  and  ridicule  the  idea 
of  its  being  the  result  of  a  system  of  defective  legislation.  Many  go 
much  further  and  boldly  maintain  that  it  is  letter  that  the  peasants 
should  not  l>e  educated,  as  education  would  make  them  thoroughly 
discontented  with  their  present  position  in  life,"  (p.  126.) 

With  respect  to  the  diseases  of  the  English  peasantry,  we  have  the 
following  statement : 

"  Fever,  and  scrofula  in  all  its  forms,  prevail  under  such  circum 
stances,"  (p.  134.)  And  the  nourishment  is  of  the  humblest  quality. 
"  Persons  living  in  these  cottages  are  generally  very  poor,  very  dirty, 
and  usually  in  rags,  living  almost  wholly  on  tread  and  potatoes, 
scarcely  ever  tasting  animal  food,  and  consequently  highly  suscepti 
ble  of  disease,  and  very  unable  to  contend  with  it,"  (p.  135.) 

"It  is  impossible,"  says  a  writer  quoted  by  Mr.  Kay,  "fully  to  es 
timate  the  wretchedness  to  which  the  inmates  of  the  hovels,  which 
meet  the  eye  at  all  points,  are  exposed,  without  a  close  personal  in 
spection  of  them.  We  are  accustomed  to  associate  with  the  idea  of  a 
country  village,  or  with  a  cottage  situated  in  a  winding  vale,  or  hang 
ing  upon  the  side  of  a  rich  and  fertile  slope,  nothing  but  health,  con 
tentment,  and  happiness.  A  rural  dwelling  of  this  class,  with  its 
heavy  thatch  and  embowering  trees,  makes  such  a  nice  pencil-sketch, 
that  we  are  naturally  inclined  to  think  it  as  neat  and  comfortable  as 
it  appears.  But  to  know  it  aright,  it  must  be  turned  inside  out,  and 
its  realities  exposed  to  the  gaze  of  the  observer.  How  often  does  the 
cot  which  looks  so  attractive  and  romantic  upon  paper,  conceal  an 
amount  of  wretchedness,  filth,  squalor,  disease,  privation,  and  fre 
quently  of  immorality,  which,  when  exposed  in  their  reality,  are 
perfectly  appalling  ?  It  is  high  time  that  people  divested  themselves 
of  the  false  impressions  too  generally  entertained  of  the  character  of 
our  rural  cottages.  They  are  chiefly  drawn  from  descriptions  which 
at  one  time  may  have  suited  the  reality,  when  the  condition  of  the 
agricultural  laborer  was  much  better  than  it  is  now  ;  for  that  it  was 
much  better  than  at  present,  is  evident  from  the  information  derived 
from  a  variety  of  valuable  sources.  To  go  a  considerable  way  back  : 
we  find  Fortescue  alluding  to  their  condition  in  his  day,  as  one  of  great 
comfort  and  happiness ;  inasmuch  as  they  lived  chiefly  upon  butcher 
meat,  of  which  they  had  plenty,  and  had  abundance  of  good  ale,  with 
which  to  accompany  it  at  their  meals.  In  regard  to  their  diet,  at 


THE  PEASANTRY.  295 

least,  their  condition  now  seems  the  very  reverse  of  what  it  was  then ; 
and  as  it  is  impossible  that  they  could  have  fallen  back  so  much  in 
this  important  element  of  their  physical  condition,  without  having  all 
the  others  deteriorated  in  the  same  proportion,  it  is  fair  to  infer  that 
their  house  accommodation  was  better  formerly  than  now.  It  was 
better  in  this,  if  in  no  other  respect — that  fewer  people  were  to  be 
found  under  one  and  the  same  roof, — a  state  of  things  much  more  fav 
orable  to  health,  cleanliness,  and  good  morals,  than  that  which  now 
prevails.  We  must  therefore  judge  of  the  laborer's  condition,  not 
from  past  descriptions  of  it,  but  from  the  sad  realities  of  the  present 
hour,"  (142-4.) 

Describing  one  of  the  parish  houses  on  the  borders  of  Devonshire 
and  Cornwall,  our  author  saith,  that  "In  each  room  there  lived  a 
family,  night  and  day,  the  space  being  about  twelve  feet  square.  In 
one  were  a  man  and  his  wife  and  eight  children  ;  the  father,  mother, 
and  two  children  lay  in  one  bed,  the  remaining  six  were  huddled 
'  head  and  foot,'  (three  at  the  top  and  three  at  the  foot,)  in  the  other 
bed.  The  eldest  girl  was  between  fifteen  and  sixteen,  the  eldest  boy 
between  fourteen  and  fifteen  !  Is  it  not  horrible  to  think  of  men  and 
women  being  brought  up  in  this  foul,  brutish  manner  in  civilized  and 
Christian  England  ?  The  lowest  of  savages  are  not  worse  cared  for 
than  these  children  of  a  luxurious  and  refined  country,"  (p.  151.) 

"  It  is,  perhaps,  worthy  of  remark,  that  dishes,  plates,  and  other 
articles  of  crockery  seem  almost  unknown.  There  is,  however,  the 
less  need  for  them,  as  grist  bread  forms  the  principal  and,  I  believe, 
the  only  kind  of  food  that  falls  to  the  laborer's  lot."  In  no  single 
instance  did  I  observe  meat  of  any  kind  during  my  progress.  The 
furniture  is  such  as  may  be  expected  —  a  rickety  table  and  two  or 
three  foundered  chairs  generally  forming  the  extent,"  (p.  153.) 

"  This  misery,"  says  another  country  rector,  "  is  not  confined  to 
Dorsetshire.  If  you  go  to  Devonshire,  Wiltshire,  and  the  hill  coun 
try  of  Gloucestershire,  you  will  find  the  peasant  at  the  point  of  starva 
tion,"  (p.  154.) 

"We  need  not  wonder,"  continues  our  author,  "if  we  find  that 
the  amount  of  crime  in  counties,  where  the  peasants  are  in  such  a 
horrible  social  condition,  is  alarmingly  and  terribly  increasing.  The 
Times  of  the  30th  of  November,  1849,  shows  this  terrible  increase  of 
crime  in  the  last  few  years  in  Dorsetshire.  *  We  yesterday  pub 
lished,'  saith  the  editor,  *  in  a  very  short  compass,  some  grave  par- 


296  INCREASE   OF  CRIME. 

ticulars  of  the  unfortunate  county  of  Dorset.  It  is  not  simply  the 
old  story  of  wages  inadequate  for  life,  hovels  unfit  for  habitation,  and 
misery  and  sin  alternately  claiming  our  pity  and  our  disgust.  This 
state  of  things  is  so  normal,  and  we  really  believe  so  immemorial,  in 
that  notorious  county,  that  we  should  rather  deaden  than  excite  the 
anxiety  of  the  public  by  a  thrice-told  tale.  What  compels  our  at 
tention  just  now  is  a  sudden,  rapid,  and,  we  fear,  a  forced  aggrava 
tion  of  these  evils,  measured  by  the  infallible  test  of  crime.  Dorset 
shire  is  fast  sinking  into  a  slough  of  wretchedness,  which  threatens 
the  peace  and  morality  of  the  kingdom  at  large.  The  total  number 
of  convictions  which,  in  1846,  was  seven  hundred  and  ninety-eight, 
in  1847,  eight  hundred  and  twenty-one,  in  1848,  nine  hundred  and 
fifty,  mounted  up  in  1849  to  the  astonishing  number  of  one  thousand 
three  hundred  for  the  whole  year!  Unless  something  is  done  to 
stop  this  flood  of  crime,  or  the  tide  happily  turns  of  itself,  the 
county  will  have  more  than  doubled  its  convictions  within  four 
years!"  (p.  156-7.) 

Again,  speaking  of  the  hovels  of  the  peasants,  the  author  saith : 
"During  the  present  century,  we  have  been  building  dwellings  for 
the  poor,  as  if  we  were  running  up  sties  for  pigs •,"  (p.  162.) 

"  The  food  of  the  laborer  and  his  family  in  Norfolk  and  Suffolk  is 
principally  bread,  potatoes,  and  the  Norfolk  dumpling,  which  consists 
of  the  dough  of  which  the  bread  is  made.  In  none  of  tlie  cottages 
that  I  fiave  visited  in  either  of  the  three  counties  have  I  ever  seen 
such  a  thing  as  a  piece  of  fresh  'butcher's  meat"  (p.  164.) 

"One  species  of  immorality,  which  is  peculiarly  prevalent  in  these 
counties,  is  that  of  bastardy— being  fifty-three  per  cent  above  the 
average  of  England  or  Wales.  There  appears  to  le  a  perfect  want  of 
decency  among  the  people.  '  The  immorality  of  the  young  women,' 
said  the  rector  of  the  parish  to  me,  '  is  literally  horrible,  and  I  regret 
to  say  it  is  on  the  increase  in  a  most  extraordinary  degree.  When  I 
first  came  to  the  town,  the  mother  of  a  bastard  child  used  to  be 
ashamed  to  show  herself.  The  case  is  now  quite  altered ;  no  person 
seems  to  think  any  thing  at  all  of  it.  When  I  first  came  to  the  town, 
there  was  no  such  thing  as  a  common  prostitute  in  it ;  now,  there  is 
an  enormous  number  of  them.  When  I  am  called  on  to  see  a  woman 
confined  with  an  illegitimate  child,  I  endeavor  to  impress  upon  her 
the  enormity  of  the  offense ;  and  there  are  no  cases  in  which  I  receive 
more  insult  from  those  I  visit  than  from  such  persons.  They  gener- 


BOLD  IMMORALITY.  297 

ally  say :  '  They'll  get  on  as  well,  after  all  that's  said  about  it,  and  if 
they  never  do  any  thing  worse  than  that,  they  shall  get  to  heaven  as 
well  as  other  people.'  There  appears  to  be,  among  the  lower  orders, 
a  perfect  deadness  of  all  moral  feeling  upon  this  subject,"  (p.  169.) 

With  respect  to  the  mining  and  manufacturing  populations  in 
Wales,  the  evidence  is  nothing  better.  Thus  the  Rev.  John  Griffith 
saith  :  "  Nothing  can  be  lower,  I  would  say  more  degrading,  than  the 
character  in  which  the  women  stand  relative  to  the  men.  The  men 
and  women,  married  as  well  as  single,  sleep  in  the  same  room.  Pro 
miscuous  intercourse  is  most  common,  is  thought  of  as  nothing,  and 
the  women  do  not  lose  caste  by  it,"  (p.  183.) 

Again,  saith  Edward  W.  Seymour,  Esq.,  speaking  of  the  mining  dis 
tricts:  "The  vices  of  lying,  thieving,  swearing,  and  drunkenness,  and 
the  vastly  increasing  crime  of  illicit  intercourse  between  the  sexes,  pre 
vail  to  a  great  extent,  and  these  are  by  no  means  confined  to  the 
uneducated,"  (p.  189.) 

The  Rev.  James  Denning,  Brecknock,  saith  that  "  the  poor  seem 
ignorant  on  most  subjects,  except  how  to  cheat  and  speak  evil  of  each 
other.  They  appear  not  to  have  an  idea  what  the  comforts  of  life  are. 
There  are  at  least  two  thousand  persons  living  in  this  town  in  a  state 
of  the  greatest  filth,  and  to  all  appearance  they  enjoy  their  filth  and 
idleness,  for  they  make  no  effort  to  get  rid  of  it.  From  my  experi 
ence  of  Ireland,  I  think  there  is  a  great  similarity  between  the  lower 
orders  of  Welsh  and  Irish — both  are  dirty,  indolent,  bigoted,  and 
contented." — "The  number  of  illegitimate  children,  when  compared 
with  England,  is  astounding,"  (p.  190.) 

"  Morals  are  generally  at  a  low  ebb,  but  want  of  chastity  is  the 
giant  sin  of  Wales." 

But  others  say  that  "the  lower  classes  of  Wales  are  far  superior 
to  the  same  class  in  other  parts  of  the  kingdom,"  (p.  192.) 

Speaking  of  the  mining  population  of  Monmouthshire,  Mr.  Sy- 
mons  says :  "Evil  in  every  shape  is  rampant  in  this  district,  demoral 
ization  is  everywhere  dominant,  and  all  good  influences  are  compara 
tively  powerless.  They  drink  to  the  most  brutal  excess.  They  have 
little  regard  to  modesty  or  the  truth,  and  even  the  young  children  in 
the  streets,  who  can  scarcely  articulate,  give  utterance  to  impreca 
tions.  The  bodies  and  habits  of  the  people  are  almost  as  dirty  as 
the  towns  and  houses  of  the  swarthy  region  in  which  they  swarm. 
The  whole  district,  with  the  exception  of  Newport,  teems  with  crime, 
13* 


298  BOLD  IMMORALITY. 

and  all  the  slatternly  accompaniments  of  animal  power  and  moral 
disorder,  with  scarcely  a  ray  of  mental  or  spiritual  intelligence. 
The  people  are  savage  in  their  manner,  and  mimic  the  repulsive  rude 
ness  of  those  in  authority  over  them,"  (p.  199.) 

"  The  Rev.  St.  George  Armstrong  Williams  testifies  that  the  moral 
principles  of  the  Welsh  people  are  totally  corrupt  and  abandoned  in 
this  respect.  While  the  sexes  continue  to  herd  like  leasts,  it  were 
idle  to  expect  that  they  can  ~be  restrained  ~by  religion  or  conscience. 
I  assert  with  confidence  as  an  undeniable  fact,  that  fornication  is  not 
regarded  as  a  vice,  scarcely  as  a  frailty,  by  the  common  people  in 
Wales.  It  is  avowed,  defended,  and  laughed  at,  without  scruple,  or 
shame,  or  concealment,  by  both  sexes  alike"  (p.  211.) 

On  the  state  of  education,  the  assertions  of  our  author  are  what 
might  be  expected  from  the  foregoing.  Thhs  he  saith,  that  "  about 
one  half  of  our  poor  can  neither  read  nor  write,  have  never  been  in 
any  school,  and  know  little,  or  positively  nothing,  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Christian  religion,  of  moral  duties,  or  of  any  higher  pleasure  than 
beer  or  spirit-drinking  and  the  grossest  sensual  indulgence.  They 
live  precisely  like  brutes,  to  gratify,  as  far  as  their  means  allow,  the 
appetites  of  their  uncultivated  bodies,  and  then  die,  to  go  they  have 
never  thought,  cared,  or  wondered,  whither.  Brought  up  in  the 
darlcness  of  barbarism,  they  have  no  idea  that  it  is  possible  for  them 
to  attain  any  higher  condition ;  they  are  not  even  sentient  enough  to 
desire,  with  any  strength  of  feeling,  to  change  their  situation ;  they 
are  not  intelligent  enough  to  be  perseveringly  discontented  ;  they  are 
not  sensible  to  what  we  call  the  voice  of  conscience  ;  they  do  not  un 
derstand  the  necessity  of  avoiding  crime,  beyond  the  mere  fear  of  the 
police  and  a  jail ;  they  do  not  in  the  least  comprehend  that  what  is 
the  interest  of  society  is  their  own  also  ;  they  do  not  in  the  least  un 
derstand  the  meaning,  necessity,  or  effect  of  the  laws — they  eat,  drink, 
breed,  work,  and  die ;  and  while  they  pass  through  their  brute-like 
existence  here,  the  richer  and  more  intelligent  classes  are  obliged  to 
guard  them  with  police  and  standing  armies,  and  to  cover  the  land 
with  prisons,  cages,  and  all  kinds  of  receptacles  for  those  who,  in 
their  thoughtlessness  or  misery,  disturb  the  quiet  and  happiness  of 
their  more  intelligent  and  consequently  more  moral  and  prosperous 
neighbors,  by  plunder,  assault,  or  any  other  deed  which  the  law  is 
obliged,  for  the  sake  of  the  existence  of  society,  to  designate  a  '  crime, 


IGNORANCE.  299 

although  most  of  those  who  commit  it  do  not  in  the  least  comprehend 
its  criminality,"  (pp.  2,  16,  IT.) 

"  Let  it  not  be  said  that  this  picture  is  too  strongly  drawn.  The 
subject  is  one  which  does  not  admit  of  exaggeration"  (p.  219.) 

"  It  has  been  calculated  that  there  are  at  the  present  day,  in  Eng 
land  and  Wales,  nearly  eight  millions  of  persons  who  can  not  read 
and  write." 

"  Of  all  the  children  in  England  and  Wales,  between  the  ages  of 
five  and  fourteen,  more  than  the  half  are  not  attending  any  school." 

"  Even  of  the  class  of  the  farmers,  there  are  great  numbers  who 
can  not  read  and  write." 

"  Of  the  teachers  who  are  officiating  in  many  of  the  village  schools, 
there  are  many  who  can  not  read  and  write  correctly,  and  who  know 
very  little  of  the  Bible  which  they  profess  to  explain." 

"  A  very  great  part  of  our  present  village  and  town  schools  are 
managed  by  poor  and  miserably  instructed  dames,  who  thus  seek  to 
gain  a  livelihood,  and  who  literally  do  no  good  to  the  children,  except 
it  be  by  keeping  them  for  a  certain  number  of  hours  in  the  day,  out 
of  the  dirt,  and  out  of  worse  society,"  (p.  252-3.) 

"  In  most  of  our  schools,  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  provide  sala 
ries  for  the  teacher,  and  funds  for  the  support  of  the  school,  to  charge 
from  twopence  to  fourpence  a  week  per  head,  for  the  instruction  of 
scholars.  This  absolutely  excludes  the  children  of  all  paupers  and 
of  all  poor  persons,  who  can  not  afford  to  pay  so  much  out  of  their 
small  earnings,"  (p.  255.) 

I  conclude  these  multiplied  extracts  with  a  few  strong  words  of  se 
rious  warning,  on  the  inevitable  results  of  the  awful  condition  of  the 
masses  in  Great  Britain. 

"We  stand,"  saith  Mr.  Kay,  "on  dangerous  ground.  We  know 
not  now  how  far  the  mine  has  been  excavated.  We  know  not  how 
strong  the  enemy  is  ;  but  certain  it  is  that  a  spirit  omnipotent  for  evil, 
a  spirit  of  revolution,  irreverence,  irreligion,  and  recklessness,  and, 
more  dangerous  than  all,  a  spirit  of  unchecked,  unguided,  and  licen 
tious  intelligence,  is  abroad,  which  will  be  the  most  dangerous  enemy 
with  which  Christianity  has  hitherto  had  to  cope.  If  religious  teach 
ers  are  not  found,  and  that  soon,  for  this  people,  where  will  the 
Church  be  fifty  years  hence  ?  Where  the  French  Church  was  in  1796 — 
overthrown  by  an  infidel  multitude.  Can  any  one  look  on,  for  the 
next  half  century,  without  dismay  ?"  (p.  294.) 


300  THE  ENGLISH  POOR. 

"I  repeat  that  the  great  majority  of  the  people  in  the  great  towns 
of  this  kingdom  have  no  religion"  (p.  298.) 

"  Here,  with  our  vast  accumulated  masses ;  with  a  population  in 
creasing  by  1000  per  diem ;  with  an  expenditure  on  abject  pauperism 
which  amounts  to  £5,000,000  per  annum ;  with  a  terrible  deficiency 
in  the  numbers  of  our  churches  and  of  our  clergy  ;  with  the  most 
demoralizing  publications  spread  through  the  cottages  of  our  opera 
tives  ;  with  democratic  ideas  of  the  wildest  kind,  and  a  knowledge  of 
the  power  of  union  daily  gaining  ground  among  them  ; — here,  too, 
where  the  poor  have  no  stake  whatever  in  the  country, — where  the 
most  frightful  discrepancy  exists  between  the  richer  and  the  poorer 
classes  ;  where  the  poor  fancy  they  have  nothing  to  lose  and  every 
thing  to  gain  from  a  revolution ; — where  the  majority  of  the  opera 
tives  have  no  religion ; — where  our  very  freedom  is  a  danger,  unless 
the  people  are  taught  to  use  and  not  abuse  it, — and  here,  too,  where 
the  aristocracy  is  richer  and  more  powerful  than  that  of  any  other 
country  in  the  world— the  poor  are  more  depressed,  more  pauperized, 
more  irreligious,  and  very  much  worse  educated  than  the  poor  of  any 
other  European  nation,  solely  excepting  Russia,  Turkey,  South  Italy, 
Portugal,  and  Spain.  Such  a  state  of  things  can  not  long  continue !" 
(p.  322-3.) 


TREATMENT   OF   SLAVES.  301 


CHAPTER   XLIH. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  The  book  of  Mr.  Kay,  from  which  I 
have  made  so  many  extracts,  is  a  perfect  demonstration  that  millions 
of  people,  descended  from  the  superior  races  of  mankind,  are  in  a 
worse  condition,  by  far,  in  free  England,  than  the  negro  slaves  of  the 
South,  in  their  social  habits,  in  their  sense  of  morality  and  religion, 
and  in  every  other  element  of  human  comfort. 

But  the  Southern  slaves  are  subject  to  the  lash  of  the  overseer,  if 
they  are  insubordinate !  Suppose  they  are,  no  man  doubts  that  some 
kind  of  discipline  is  necessary  for  those  who  are  idle  and  refractory ; 
and  the  only  question  is  whether  the  summary  punishment  of  twelve 
stripes*  is  more  cruel  than  the  substitute  of  imprisonment,  which 
modern  philanthropy  prefers,  on  the  ground  of  its  greater  humanity. 
I  confess  that  I  am  more  than  doubtful  of  the  assumption  that  the 
wisdom  of  our  age  has  made  any  improvement  on  the  practice  of 
former  times  in  this  matter.  The  Mosaic  law,  which  was  divine,  or 
dered  forty  stripes  even  for  the  free  Israelite ;  and  children  were  to  be 
corrected  by  the  rod,  as  a  necessary  element  in  their  moral  and  re 
ligious  training.  I  shall  quote  the  words  of  Scripture,  however,  not 
for  your  information,  of  course,  but  for  my  other  readers ;  as  a  famili 
arity  with  the  language  of  the  Bible  on  these  subjects  is  by  no  means 
common,  at  this  day.  Thus  then  we  read  in  Deut.  25  :  1-3  : 

"  If  there  be  a  controversy  between  men,  and  they  come  unto  judg 
ment,  that  the  judges  may  judge  them,  then  they  shall  justify  the 
righteous,  and  condemn  the  wicked.  And  if  the  wicked  man  be 
worthy  to  be  beaten,  the  judge  shall  cause  him  to  lie  down,  and  to  be 
beaten  before  his  face,  according  to  his  fault,  by  a  certain  number. 
Forty  stripes  he  may  give  him  and  not  exceed,  lest  if  he  should  ex 
ceed,  and  beat  him  with  many  stripes,  then  thy  brother  should  seem 
vile  unto  thee." 

*  This  is  all,  according  to  Mrs.  Kemble,  which  are  allowed  to  be  given  in  the  field.  In 
bad  cases,  the  head  overseer  may  extend  the  punishment  to  fifty,  which  is  rarely  exceeded. 


302  CORPORAL  PUNISHMENT. 

The  same  kind  of  discipline  is  recognized  in  the  book  of  Proverbs. 
Thus,  ch.  10,  v.  13  :  "A  rod  is  for  the  back  of  him  that  is  void  of  un 
derstanding."  Again,  ch.  26,  v.  3 :  "A  whip  for  the  horse,  a  bridle 
for  the  ass,  and  a  rod  for  the  fool's  back." 

And  we  find  it  most  expressly  laid  down  in  the  education  of  child 
ren,  Prov.  13  :  24:  "He  that  spareth  the  rod,  hateth  his  son ;  but  he 
that  loveth  him,  chasteneth  him  betimes."  Again,  ch.  22,  Y.  15 : 
"Foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  a  child,  but  the  rod  of  correc 
tion  shall  drive  it  far  from  him."  Again,  ch.  23,  v.  13-4,  "  Withhold 
not  correction  from  the  child,  for  if  thou  beatest  him  with  the  rod, 
he  shall  not  die.  $iou  shalt  beat  him  with  the  rod,  and  shalt  deliver 
his  soul  from  hell." 

Here  there  is  no  restriction  laid  upon  the  parent  with  respect  to 
the  number  of  stripes,  because  the  affection  of  the  father  was  a  suffi 
cient  guard  against  excess.  And  in  the  case  of  the  slave,  there  was 
no  restriction,  since  the  interest  of  the  master  was  enough,  as  a  gen 
eral  rule,  to  prevent  undue  severity,  which  could  only  deprive  him  of 
the  labor  of  the  servant,  and  thus  prove  to  be  a  loss  to  himself, 
independent  of  the  feelings  of  humanity. 

But  the  strongest  evidence  in  favor  of  bodily  correction  is  that 
which  our  blessed  Saviour  gave  in  person.  For  thus  we  read,  (John 
2  :  13-5 :)  "And  the  Jews'  Passover  was  at  hand,  and  Jesus  went  up 
to  Jerusalem,  and  found  in  the  temple  those  that  sold  oxen,  and 
sheep,  and  doves,  and  the  changers  of  money  sitting ;  and  when  he 
had  made  a  scourge  of  small  cords,  he  drove  them  all  out  of  the 
temple,"  etc. 

I  have  briefly  referred  to  these  passages  in  the  Bible  View  of 
Slavery,  but  I  set  them  forth  here  in  full,  because  there  is  nothing 
which  I  regard  with  more  regret  than  the  disposition,  so  manifest  in 
our  day,  to  regard  such  precepts  as  only  fit  for  a  barbarous  age,  and 
totally  inconsistent  with  the  mild  precepts  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  a 
slander  on  the  character  of  God  to  charge  His  laws  with  any  thing 
like  cruelty,  or  unnecessary  harshness.  On  the  contrary,  I  maintain 
that  His  system,  as  laid  down  for  His  chosen  people,  paid  more  re 
gard  to  love,  and  tenderness,  and  consideration  for  the  poor,  than  any 
code  of  laws  which  has  ever  existed,  or  now  exists,  in  the  boasted  re 
finement  and  philanthropy  of  the  nineteenth  century.  And  I  shall 
proceed  to  prove  this  statement  by  positive  testimony  from  the  same 


MOSAIC  LAW.  303 

book  of  Deuteronomy,  which  commands  the  use  of  the  scourge,  even 
to  the  free  Israelite.  Thus,  then,  we  read : 

"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with 
all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might."  (Deut.  6  :  5.) 

"  The  Lord  did  not  set  his  love  upon  you,  nor  choose  you,  because 
ye  were  more  in  number  than  any  people,  for  ye  were  the  fewest  of 
all  people ;  but  because  the  Lord  loved  you,  and  because  he  would 
keep  the  oath  which  he  had  sworn  unto  your  fathers."  (Deut. 
7  :  7-8.) 

"He  doth  execute  the  judgment  of  the  fatherless  and  widow, 
and  loveth  the  stranger  in  giving  him  food  and  raiment.  Love  ye 
therefore  the  stranger,  ibr  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt." 
(Deut.  10  :  18-9.) 

"  At  the  end  of  every  seven  years  thou  shalt  make  a  release.  Every 
creditor  that  lendeth  aught  unto  his  neighbor  shall  release  it;  he  shall 
not  exact  it  of  his  neighbor,  or  of  his  brother ;  because  it  is  called  the 
Lord's  release.  Of  a  foreigner  thou  mayest  exact  it  again :  but  that 
which  is  thine  with  thy  brother  thine  hand  shall  release."  (Deut. 
15  :  1-3.) 

"If  there  be  among  you  a  poor  man  of  one  of  thy  brethren  within 
any  of  thy  gates  in  thy  land  which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee, 
thou  shalt  not  harden  thy  heart,  nor  shut  thy  hand  from  thy  poor 
brother,  but  thou  shalt  open  thine  hand  wide  unto  him,  and  shalt 
surely  lend  him  sufficient  for  his  need,  in  that  which  he  wanteth." 

"  Beware  that  there  be  not  a  thought  in  thy  wicked  heart,  saying  : 
The  seventh  year,  the  year  of  release,  is  at  hand,  and  thine  eye  be 
evil  against  thy  poor  brother,  and  thou  givest  him  nought ;  and  he 
cry  unto  the  Lord  against  thee,  and  it  be  sin  unto  thee.  Thou  shalt 
surely  give  him,  and  thine  heart  shall  not  be  grieved  when  thou  givest 
unto  him ;  because  that  for  this  thing  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  bless 
thee  in  all  thy  works,  and  in  all  thou  puttest  thine  hand  unto.  For 
the  poor  shall  never  cease  out  of  the  land:  therefore  I  command  thee, 
saying,  thou  shalt  open  thine  hand  wide  unto  thy  brother,  to  thy 
poor,  and  to  thy  needy,  in  thy  land."  (Deut.  15  :  7-11.) 

"  Thou  shalt  observe  the  feast  of  tabernacles  seven  days,  after  that 
thou  hast  gathered  in  thy  corn  and  thy  wine.  And  thou  shalt  rejoice 
in  thy  feast,  thou,  and  thy  son,  and  thy  daughter,  and  thy  man-serv 
ant,  and  thy  maidservant,  (thy  londman  and  thy  "bondmaid  in  the 


304  MOSAIC  LAW. 

Hebrew,)  and  the  Levite,  the  stranger,  and  the  fatherless,  and  the 
widow,  that  are  within  thy  gates."     (Deut.  16  :  13-4-.) 

These  passages  clearly  prove  that  the  great  law  of  love  to  God  and 
love  to  man  was  the  fundamental  principle  in  this  divine  system. 
The  release  of  all  debts  every  seventh  year,  the  benevolence  and  lib 
eral  charity  to  the  poor,  and  the  special  regard  paid  to  the  stranger, 
the  orphan,  and  the  widow,  stand  preeminent  above  the  legislation  of 
the  whole  Christian  world,  and  claim  our  highest  reverence  and 
admiration. 

But  now  I  pass  to  the  divine  rule  in  time  of  war,  which  is  marked 
with  such  peculiar  regard  for  human  feelings,  viz. : 

"  When  thou  goest  out  to  battle  against  thine  enemies,  and  seest 
horses,  and  chariots,  and  a  people  more  than  thou,  be  not  afraid  of 
them,  for  the  Lord  thy  God  is  with  thee,  which  brought  thee  up  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt.  And  it  shall  be,  when  ye  are  come  nigh  unto 
the  battle,  that  the  priest  shall  approach  and  speak  unto  the  people, 
and  shall  say  unto  them :  Hear,  0  Israel,  ye  approach  this  day  unto 
battle  against  your  enemies  ;  let  not  your  hearts  faint ;  fear  not,  and 
do  not  tremble,  neither  be  ye  terrified  because  of  them  ;  for  the  Lord 
your  God  is  he  that  goeth  with  you,  to  fight  for  you  against  your 
enemies,  to  save  you." 

"  And  the  officers  shall  speak  unto  the  people,  saying :  What  man 
is  there  that  hath  built  a  new  house  and  hath  not  dedicated  it  ?  Let 
him  go  and  return  to  his  house,  lest  he  die  in  the  battle,  and  another 
man  dedicate  it.  And  what  man  is  he  that  hath  planted  a  vineyard, 
and  hath  not  yet  eaten  of  it  ?  Let  him  also  go  unto  his  house,  lest 
he  die  in  the  battle,  and  another  man  eat  of  it.  And  what  man  is 
there  that  hath  betrothed  a  wife,  and  hath  not  taken  her  ?  Let  him 
go  and  return  unto  his  house,  lest  he  die  in  the  battle,  and  another 
man  take  her." 

"And  the  officers  shall  speak  further  unto  the  people,  and  they 
shall  say  :  Wbat  man  is  there  that  is  fearful  and  faint-hearted  ?  Let 
him  go  and  return  to  his  house,  lest  his  brethren's  heart  fail  as  well 
as  his  heart."  (Deut.  20  :  1-9.) 

Here  we  sec  a  contrast  between  the  laws  of  God  and  the  laws  of 
men,  which  is  a  wonderfully  impressive  proof  of  the  tenderness  to 
natural  human  feeling,  manifest  throughout  this  divine  system. 
There  is  no  dragging  of  the  unwilling  soldier  from  his  house,  his  vine 
yard,  or  his  betrothed  bride,  against  his  will.  Even  the  shrinking  of 


COURAGE.  305 

the  coward  is  respected,  instead  of  shooting  him  for  a  defect  which  is 
rooted  in  his  physical  temperament,  and  beyond  his  control.  In 
deed  it  is  remarkable,  that  in  the  whole  Bible  there  is  no  praise  be 
stowed  on  mere  physical  courage,  for  this  belongs  only  to  the  animal 
part  of  human  nature.  We  see  it  in  the  brutes,  and  even  in  the  in 
sects.  The  hornet  and  the  enraged  bee  will  follow  a  man  for  a  mile, 
and  attack  him  with  fury.  But  what  human  being  would  venture  to 
assault  a  creature  as  much  superior  to  himself  in  size  and  strength, 
as  the  man  is  superior  to  the  insect  ?  So  we  see  it  in  the  dog,  that 
some  of  the  species  are  endowed  by  nature  with  the  most  obstinate 
courage,  as  the  mastiff  and  the  bull-dog ;  while  others,  like  the  spaniel, 
could  never  be  made  to  fight,  by  any  training.  So  with  the  birds- 
Some  are  made  for  violent  assaults,  as  the  eagle  and  the  hawk,  but 
who  would  expect  the  dove  to  manifest  the  same  ferocity  ?  All  these 
varieties  of  natural  temperament  may  be  found  in  man,  who  is  the 
head  and  complement  of  the  creation  in  our  lower  world.  And  hence, 
the  courage  which  belongs  merely  to  our  physical  constitution  is  no 
just  subject  of  praise  from  the  Almighty.  It  is  the  animal  nature, 
and  nothing  more.  The  moral  courage  of  the  soul  is  quite  another 
thing,  because  it  is  the  result  of  spiritual  principle.  This,  therefore, 
and  this  only,  is  properly  a  virtue.  Such  was  the  courage  of  David 
when  he  offered  himself  to  the  combat  against  Goliath,  in  faithful  re 
liance  on  the  God  of  Israel.  Such  was  the  courage  of  the  noble 
three,  who  were  ready  for  the  fiery  furnace,  rather  than  bow  down 
before  the  idol  of  the  Babylonian  king.  Such  was  the  courage  of  the 
blessed  Apostles,  who  endured  scourging,  imprisonment,  and  death, 
in  the  service  of  their  divine  Master.  Such  was  the  courage  of  the 
martyrs  in  all  ages.  And  such  is  the  courage  which  alone  may  claim 
the  admiration  of  the  Christian,  and  the  approval  of  the  divine 
Redeemer,  in  the  judgment  of  the  great  day. 

But  this  code  of  laws  contains  several  other  commandments,  bear 
ing  on  the  same  subject  of  a  kind  and  affectionate  spirit,  which  dis 
tinguish  it  above  all  other  systems  as  the  work  of  the  God  of  love. 
For  thus  we  read  in  the  twenty-second  chapter : 

"  Thou  shalt  not  see  thy  brother's  ox  or  his  sheep  go  astray,  and 
hide  thyself  from  them  ;  thou  shalt  in  any  case  bring  them  again 
unto  thy  brother.  And  if  thy  brother  be  not  nigh  unto  thee,  or  if 
thou  know  him  not,  then  thou  shalt  bring  it  unto  thine  own  house, 
and  it  shall  be  with  thee  until  thy  brother  seek  after  it,  and  thou 


306  MOSAIC  LAW. 

shalt  restore  it  to  him  again." — "And  with  all  lost  things  of  thy 
brother's,  which  he  hath  lost  and  thou  hast  found,  shalt  thou  do  like 
wise  ;  thou  mayest  not  hide  thyself." 

"  Thou  shalt  not  see  thy  brother's  ass  or  his  ox  fall  down  by  the 
way,  and  hide  thyself  from  them  ;  thou  shalt  surely  help  him  to  lift 
them  up  again." 

"  If  a  bird's-nest  chance  to  be  before  thee  in  the  way,  in  any  tree, 
or  on  the  ground,  whether  they  be  young  ones  or  eggs,  and  the  dam 
sitting  upon  the  young  or  upon  the  eggs,  thou  shalt  not  take  the  dam 
with  the  young  ;  but  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  let  the  dam  go,  and  take 
the  young  to  thee,  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee,  and  that  thou  may 
est  prolong  thy  days." 

"  When  thou  buildest  a  new  house,  then  thou  shalt  make  a  battle 
ment  for  thy  roof,  that  thou  bring  not  blood  upon  thine  house,  if  any 
man  fall  from  thence."  (Deut.  22  :  1-8.) 

"When  a  man  hath  taken  a  new  wife,  he  shall  not  go  out  to  war, 
neither  shall  he  be  charged  with  any  business  ;  but  he  shall  be  free 
at  home  one  year,  and  shall  cheer  up  the  wife  which  he  hath 
taken." 

"  No  man  shall  take  the  nether  or  the  upper  mill-stone  to  pledge  ; 
for  he  taketh  a  man's  life  to  pledge." 

"  When  thou  dost  lend  thy  brother  any  thing,  thou  shalt  not  go 
into  his  house  to  fetch  his  pledge :  thou  shalt  stand  abroad,  and 
the  man  to  whom  thou  dost  lend  shall  bring  out  the  pledge  abroad 
unto  thee." 

"  And  if  the  man  be  poor,  thou  shalt  not  sleep  with  his  pledge :  In 
any  case  thou  shalt  deliver  him  the  pledge  again  when  the  sun  goeth 
down,  that  he  may  sleep  in  his  own  raiment,  and  bless  thee  ;  and  it 
shall  be  righteousness  unto  thee  before  the  Lord  thy  God." 

"  Thou  shalt  not  oppress  an  hired  servant  that  is  poor  and  needy, 
whether  he  be  of  thy  brethren,  or  of  thy  strangers  that  are  in  the 
land  within  thy  gates.  At  his  day  thou  shalt  give  him  his  hire, 
neither  shall  the  sun  go  down  upon  it,  for  he  is  poor  and  setteth  his 
heart  upon  it :  lest  he  cry  unto  the  Lord,  and  it  be  sin  unto  thee." 

"  When  thou  cuttest  down  thine  harvest  in  thy  field,  and  hast  for 
gotten  a  sheaf  in  the  field,  thou  shalt  not  go  again  to  fetch  it ;  it  shall 
be  for  the  stranger,  the  fatherless  and  the  widow :  that  the  Lord  thy 
God  may  bless  thee  in  all  the  work  of  thine  hands." 

"  When  thou  beatest  thine  olive-tree,  thou  shalt  not  go  over  the 


MOSAIC  LAW.  307 

boughs  again :  it  shall  be  for  the  stranger,  the  fatherless,  and  the 
widow." 

"  When  thou  gatherest  the  grapes  of  thy  vineyard,  thou  shalt  not 
glean  it  afterwards  ;  it  shall  be  for  the  stranger,  the  fatherless,  and 
the  widow." 

"  And  thou  shalt  remember  that  thou  wast  a  bondman  in  the  land 
of  Egypt;  therefore  I  command  thee  to  do  this  thing."  (Deut. 
24  :  5-6,  10-5,  19-22.) 

Now  we  may  search  in  vain  through  the  whole  legislation  of  the  world 
for  any  thing  to  be  compared  with  these  laws  of  the  God  of  Israel,  so 
full  of  tender  compassion  for  the  poor,  of  brotherly  kindness  in  the 
acts  of  social  interest,  and  even  of  pitiful  consideration  towards  the 
birds  and  beasts ;  the  least  performance  of  mercy  being  regarded  by 
Him,  without  whom  the  sparrow  can  not  fall  to  the  ground,  and  His 
favor  being  only  assured  to  those  who  cherish,  in  their  daily  life,  the 
spirit  of  benevolent  affection. 

When,  therefore,  we  find  that  the  same  God  of  love  directs  offend 
ers  to  be  chastised  with  the  scourge,  and  even  orders  the  rod  to  be 
used  in  the  education  of  children,  we  can  not,  without  absolute  im 
piety,  suppose  that  these  punishments  are  cruel,  or  liable  to  be 
charged  with  inhumanity.  On  the  contrary,  we  are  bound  to  believe 
that  they  were  dictated  by  the  unerring  wisdom  of  Him  who  thor 
oughly  understands  the  requirements  of  human  nature,  and  who  com 
manded  them  precisely  because  he  knew  that  they  were  best  adapted 
to  secure  the  proper  objects  of  all  punishment,  namely,  the  reforma 
tion  of  the  offender,  and  the  warning  of  others  against  the  offense. 
To  show  how  this  should  be  understood  by  every  Christian  believer, 
will  be  my  labor  in  the  next  chapter. 


308  CORPORAL  PUNISHMENT. 


CHAPTER    XLIV. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  In  the  divine  system  laid  down  for 
the  chosen  people,  we  read  nothing  of  imprisonment  for  debt,  or  for 
crime,  or  for  any  offense  against  established  authority.  The  debtor 
might  be  sold  for  six  years,  in  order  to  pay  the  creditor  by  his  labor, 
and  if  this  did  not  suffice,  the  remainder  of  the  debt  was  canceled, 
and  the  creditor  was  obliged  to  let  him  go  free.  The  thief  was  com 
pelled  to  make  restitution  fourfold,  and  if  this  was  not  in  his  power, 
he  likewise  was  sold  into  bondage.  The  murderer,  adulterer,  rav- 
isher,  etc.,  were  to  be  stoned  by  the  whole  multitude,  the  witnesses 
beginning  the  work  of  punishment.  The  man-slayer  who  was  not 
guilty  of  murder,  because  the  death  was  unintentional,  was  forced  to 
betake  himself  to  a  city  of  refuge,  and  remain  there  until  the  decease 
of  the  High  Priest.  The  transgressor  in  small  matters  was  ordered 
to  be  chastised  with  the  scourge,  according  to  the  discretion  of  the 
judges.  And  in  cases  of  injury  by  maiming,  the  culprit  suffered  the 
loss  of  the  same  member  of  which  he  had  deprived  his  neighbor,  "an 
eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,"  etc.  But  we  read  of  no  jails,  no 
penitentiaries,  no  imprisonments  for  years  or  for  life,  no  shutting  up 
of  men  from  the  free  light  and  air  of  heaven,  and  from  social  inter 
course  with  their  families  and  the  community  around  them. 

Now  the  special  question  to  be  considered  is  this,  viz.,  whether  the 
infliction  of  the  scourge  or  the  lash  was,  or  was  not,  more  safe,  more 
merciful,  and  more  effectual,  than  the  modern  substitute  of  imprison 
ment,  which  so  many  philanthropic  minds  imagine  to  be  a  vast  im 
provement  upon  the  divine  system. 

I  am  perfectly  aware  that  in  justifying  the  law  of  God  in  this 
matter,  I  run  counter  to  the  prevailing  habits  and  notions  of  our 
country.  In  the  last  century  it  was  otherwise.  The  punishment  of 
scourging  was  then  the  established  course  for  all  the  lighter  misde 
meanors.  Flogging  was  the  chastisement  of  the  soldier  in  the  army, 
of  the  sailor  in  the  navy,  of  the  pupil  in  the  school,  of  the  child  in 


COEPOKAL  PUNISHMENT.  309 

the  family.  But  so  rapidly  have  the  ideas  of  society  advanced  about 
\vhat  they  are  pleased  to  call  the  dignity  of  human  nature,  that  this 
sort  of  discipline  has  become  discreditable  and  even  odious.  In  the 
administration  of  justice  the  old  common-law  maxim,  Qui  non  habet 
in  crumena,  luat  in  corpore — i.e.,  "He  that  has  no  money  in  his 
purse,  must  pay  in  his  body,"  has  entirely  disappeared.  Flogging 
in  the  army  and  the  navy  is  abolished  by  the  Legislature.  Schools 
are  managed  as  they  may  be,  without  the  rod,  and  the  dignity  of 
human  nature  must  not  be  violated  by  giving  twelve  stripes  even  to 
the  Southern  slave,  although  the  law  of  God  directed  forty  to  be 
administered  to  the  Jewish  freeman  ! 

It  is  no  part  of  my  present  purpose  to  set  forth  the  results  already 
apparent  from  this  rapid  change  in  public  sentiment,  though  I  think 
it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  it  has  produced  a  serious  deterioration 
in  the  old  reverence  for  law  and  order,  without  which  freedom  must 
degenerate  into  anarchy,  and  prosperity  into  corruption.  But  I  con 
fine  myself  to  my  proper  object  by  considering  it  in  its  relation  to 
the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God.  In  the  progress  of  these  new 
ideas,  Christianity  has  been  made  to  bow  down  to  the  popular  opinion, 
until  the  Bible  has  almost  ceased  to  be  the  standard  of  truth.  Men 
have  discovered  that  the  ancient  Jews  were  a  barbarous  race,  and 
therefore  the  law  laid  down  to  them  by  the  wisdom  of  the  Almighty 
is  regarded  as  a  barbarous  code,  no  longer  entitled  to  religious  vener 
ation.  The  tone  and  spirit  of  a  godless  literature  have  infected  even 
the  professed  ministers  of  the  sanctuary  ;  and  too  many  are  found 
doing  the  work  of  Bishop  Colenso  in  another  way,  by  denying  the 
meaning  and  the  application  of  the  Old  Testament,  because  "  the 
people  love  to  have  it  so." 

I  thank  God,  however,  that  the  Church  has  not  yet  been  forced 
to  change  her  system.  The  Old  Testament  is  still  read  along  with 
the  New,  according  to  her  Calendar.  The  Psalms  of  David  still  hold 
their  place,  as  her  chief  songs  of  praise.  And  there  are  still  left,  I 
trust,  a  goodly  number  amongst  her  bishops,  her  clergy,  and  her 
laymen,  willing  and  able  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  modern  in 
fidelity,  and  maintain  the  preeminence  of  the  whole  Bible,  as  the 
Word  of  inspiration. 

But  I  return  from  this  digression  to  the  specific  point  which  I  have 
undertaken  to  discuss,  namely,  whether  the  punishment  of  the 
scourge,  ordered  by  the  authority  of  the  divine  and  Omnipotent 


310  COKrORAL  PUNISHMENT. 

Lawgiver,  is  not  more  safe,  more  merciful,  and  more  effectual,  than 
the  modern  substitute  of  imprisonment.  That  it  is  so,  I  should  be 
willing  to  assume,  because  it  was  the  system  appointed  by  the  Al 
mighty  for  His  chosen  people.  But  I  think  it  may  be  proved  to  any 
reflecting  and  candid  mind,  for  the  following  reasons : 

First,  then,  it  is  more  safe  for  the  offender,  both  in  mind  and  in 
body.  In  mind,  because  it  is  universally  conceded  that  a  residence 
for  some  time  in  a  jail  or  a  work-house  rarely  fails  to  make  the  pri 
soner,  morally  and  socially,  a  far  worse  man  when  he  leaves,  than 
he  was  when  he  entered  it.  His  companionship,  during  the  time  of 
his  confinement,  is  with  men,  many  of  whom  are  deeply  depraved, 
and  familiar  with  iniquity.  He  finds  no  one  trying  to  cure  him  of 
his  errors,  while  the  leading  spirits  are  disposed  to  make  light  of  his 
fault,  to  teach  him  to  curse  the  law,  and  to  sink  him  to  their  own 
level.  Thus  the  prison  becomes  a  school  of  vice,  and  the  punishment 
of  a  light  offense  prepares  him  for  a  much  more  perilous  course  of 
future  criminality. 

But  imprisonment  is  also  less  safe  for  the  body,  because  the  change 
of  his  habits,  from  daily  exercise  in  the  open  air,  to  the  unwholesome 
atmosphere  of  the  jail,  with  its  wretched  fare,  and  its  contaminating 
associations,  must  soon  reduce  his  strength,  and  lay  the  foundation, 
at  least,  for  disease  and  suffering,  perhaps  to  the  total  ruin  of  his 
constitution. 

In  the  second  place,  the  punishment  of  the  scourge  is  more  mer 
ciful  than  imprisonment,  because,  though  sharper  at  the  time,  it  is 
soon  over.  The  culprit  is  not  cut  off  from  the  kind  sympathy  of  his 
humble  home,  his  accustomed  friends,  and  his  affectionate  family. 
He  suffers  nothing  from  the  unfeeling  jests  and  often  insulting  taunts 
of  such  companions  as  he  would  have  found  in  the  jail.  The  conduct 
of  those  around  him  is  adapted  to  soothe  and  comfort  him.  And  he 
returns  to  his  labor  without  any  loss  of  health  or  moral  principle. 

In  the  third  place,  I  consider  the  punishment  of  the  scourge  to  be 
much  more  effectual  than  imprisonment,  both  as  it  respects  t'he 
offender  himself,  and  the  community  to  w?hich  he  belongs.  For  the 
temper  of  insubordination  or  rebellion  which  calls  for  chastisement 
is  very  apt  to  be  rather  inflamed  than  put  down  by  confinement.  The 
culprit  broods  over  the  hardship  of  his  case,  with  sullen  wrath ;  and 
regards  the  law  which  shuts  him  up  with  the  fee'ling  of  indignation. 
Whereas  the  summary  infliction  of  the  lash  humbles  his  pride  and 


CORPORAL  PUNISHMENT.  311 

subdues  his  temper,  and  thus  reforms  him  by  the  strong  hand,  which 
is  the  most  convincing  argument  with  ordinary  human  nature.  This, 
therefore,  effects,  much  more  surely  than  the  prison,  the  first  object 
of  punishment,  which  is  the  correction  and  amendment  of  the  offend 
er.  And  the  second  object,  namety,  the  warning  given  to  others,  in 
order  to  save  them  from  transgression,  is  evidently  better  accom 
plished  ;  because  the  lesson  is  given  publicly,  and  operates  on  all  who 
witness  the  infliction.  If  he  were  imprisoned,  on  the  contrary,  he 
would  be  taken  out  of  sight ;  and  what  he  suffered,  or  whether  he 
suffered  at  all,  would  excite  comparatively  but  little  interest  in  others. 
On  the  whole,  therefore,  I  can  see  no  reason  whatever  for  doubting 
the  superior  effects  of  the  punishment  prescribed  by  the  law  of  God, 
and  universally  retained  by  all  Christendom  for  eighteen  centuries 
together.  And  thus  far,  the  practice  of  the  Southern  slaveholder,  in 
the  usual  mode  of  keeping  his  servants  in  subordination,  seems 
abundantly  sanctioned  by  the  highest  authority.  For  it  is  certain 
that  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  State,  everywhere,  concurred 
upon  the  subject,  until  the  present  era  of  sensitive  transcendentalism 
raised  against  it  the  reproach  of  cruel  barbarity,  and  in  so  doing,  set 
itself  in  opposition  to  every  previous  rule  of  discipline,  whether 
human  or  divine. 

That  it  is  liable  to  abuse,  is  no  argument  against  its  reasonable 
and  just  application.  For  so  is  every  other  kind  of  discipline,  and 
none  more  so  than  the  favorite  plan  of  imprisonment.  But  it  has 
this  advantage  on  its  side,  namely,  that  it  is  public  in  its  administra 
tion  ;  and  this  very  publicity  is  one  of  the  surest  guards  against  ex 
cessive  severity.  Whereas  the  abuses  of  imprisonment  are  private 
of  necessity,  and  the  sufferers  are  exposed  to  all  the  impositions, 
exactions,  and  caprices  of  their  keepers,  with  the  least  probable  chance 
of  exposure.  No  class  of  men  in  the  community  are  more  liable  to 
be  led  into  every  practice  of  petty  tyranny  than  the  officers  of  prisons, 
from  the  very  nature  of  their  employment.  And  no  offense  against 
humanity  is  more  difficult  to  prove  than  the  maltreatment  to  which 
the  prisoners  must  needs  be  subject,  if  those  who  are  virtually 
their  masters  should  be  lacking  in  conscience  or  in  moral  prin 
ciple. 

But  this  privacy  protects  them  from  reproach,  because  the  wise 
philanthropists  of  our  day  see  and  hear  nothing  of  any  abuse,  and 
therefore  take  it  for  granted  that  their  favorite  system  is  open  to  no 


312  MRS.   KEMBLE. 

suspicion.  The  Southern  masters,  on  the  contrary,  are  sheltered 
by  no  secrecy.  All  the  punishments  which  they  inflict,  and  a  vast 
deal  which  they  do  not  inflict,  are  sure  to  be  wafted  on  the  wings  of 
the  wind,  to  every  quarter  of  the  land,  and  across  the  ocean,  and 
dressed  up  in  eloquent  oratory,  in  pathetic  poetry,  and  in  exciting 
novels,  to  stir  the  generous  pulse  of  public  sympathy  and  indignation. 
We  have  seen  that  by  the  Jewish  law,  the  Roman  law,  the  English 
law,  and,  in  fine,  by  the  law  of  every  other  people,  the  testimony  of 
slaves  could  not  be  received  on  any  trial.  But  to  make  amends  for 
this,  the  mere  statements  of  every  slave,  without  any  oath  at  all,  are 
received  by  all  our  modern  philanthropists  in  the  most  absolute  con 
fidence,  while  the  contrary  statements  of  freemen,  bishops,  clergy, 
and  laity,  are  set  at  nought,  as  perfectly  unworthy  of  regard.  And 
this  is  what  our  ultra-abolitionists  call  justice  ! 

It  was  thus  with  Mrs.  Kemble,  whose  journal  of  six  months'  resi 
dence  upon  a  Georgia  plantation  is  accepted  as  so  conclusive  a  de 
scription  of  the  treatment  of  the  slaves  throughout  the  whole  Southern 
population.  I  entertain  the  utmost  respect  for  this  lady's  talents, 
for  her  very  attractive  style,  and  for  her  perfect  sincerit}r.  But  I 
demur  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  testimony,  because  the  greater  part 
of  it  rested  on  the  veracity  of  the  slaves,  in  opposition  to  her  husband 
and  his  overseer ;  and  was  besides  strongly  influenced  by  her  own 
previous  prejudices,  by  her  exceedingly  susceptible  temperament, 
and  by  her  manifest  ignorance  of  the  state  of  brutal  depravity  which 
Mr.  Kay  sets  forth  as  the  condition  of  the  poorer  classes  in  her  own 
beloved  England,  where  the  substance  of  slavery  remains,  under  the 
form  of  freedom. 

Granting,  therefore,  most  willingly,  all  that  can  be  claimed  for  the 
personal  character  of  this  lady,  lean  not  admit  that  she  was  properly 
qualified  for  the  work  which  she  had  undertaken.  The  daughter  of 
a  distinguished  tragedian,  herself  highly  educated  and  accomplished 
for  the  stage,  brought  up  in  the  midst  of  affluent  indulgence,  a  fas 
cinating  actress  and  refined  gentlewoman,  what  opportunity  had  she 
to  learn  the  debased  condition  of  the  laboring  poor  in  her  own  coun 
try  ?  And  when  she  came,  in  her  bloom  of  youth  and  loveliness,  to 
dazzle  her  admiring  audiences  in  the  United  States,  knowing  nothing 
about  the  negro  beyond  the  popular  voice  of  English  abolitionism, 
what  time  and  attention  could  she  possibly  devote  to  the  thorough 
investigation  of  the  problem,  which  had  tasked  the  abilities  of  the 


MRS.   KEMBLE.  313 

ablest  statesmen,  North  and  South,  to  understand  its  true  political 
'and  social  character  ?  Had  she  ever  looked  into  the  awful  degradation 
and  heathenism  of  the  colored  race,  on  their,  native  soil  in  Africa  ? 
Had  she  taken  any  pains  to  investigate  the  condition  of  the  free  ne 
groes  in  the  great  cities  ?  Did  she  belong  to  the  class  of  those  angels 
of  mercy  who  ply  their  religious  task  amongst  the  degraded  and 
demoralized  masses  of  our  own  country  ?  Had  she,  in  a  word,  ac 
quired  any  degree  \vhatever  of  the  experience,  observation,  and  prac 
tical  wisdom,  necessary  for  the  formation  of  a  calm  and  reliable 
judgment  on  such  a  question  ? 

Not  at  all !  She  passed  through  a  brilliant  course  of  histrionic 
celebrity,  and  then  married  a  gentleman  of  great  wealth,  residing  in 
Philadelphia,  but  owning  a  large  plantation  in  Georgia.  She  lived 
and  moved  in  the  most  luxurious  and  aristocratic  circle.  And  when 
she  accompanied  her  husband  on  a  visit  to  his  property,  where  he 
had  not  been  for  some  years,  she  brought  with  her  all  her  strong 
English  prejudices  against  slavery,  all  her  refined  disgust  towards 
the  ordinary  habits  of  English  and  Irish  as  well  as  African  laborers, 
all  her  impulsive  and  gushing  sensibilities,  all  her  fixed  resolution  to 
open  her  ears  and  eyes  to  one  side,  while  she  closed  them  fast  against 
the  other,  and  all  her  ignorance  of  the  wide  field  of  facts  and  expe 
rience  the  knowledge  of  which  is  absolutely  essential,  before  even  a 
cool  and  masculine  mind  can  be  fully  prepared  to  form  a  fair  estimate 
of  the  Southern  institution. 

A  worse  qualified  witness,  therefore,  on  such  a  subject,  it  would 
be  difficult  to  imagine.  I  should  as  soon  think  of  appointing  a  board 
ing-school  girl  to  frame  a  code  of  laws,  or  to  inspect  the  management 
of  our  colleges,  as  of  selecting  Mrs.  Kemble  to  settle  the  administra 
tion  of  a  social  system,  embracing  four  millions  of  slaves,  and  involv 
ing  the  interests  of  nearly  half  the  States  on  our  vast  continent. 

Yet  even  under  the  strong  bias  of  her  habits,  her  feelings,  and  her 
prejudices,  she  informs  us  of  much  which  places  the  condition  of  the 
slaves  on  this  Georgia  plantation  far  above  the  debased  state  of  the 
English  peasantry,  as  it  is  described  by  Mr.  Kay.  She  found  amongst 
them  no  promiscuous  licentiousness  of  all  ages  and  both  sexes,  herd 
ing  like  brutes  in  the  same  wretched  den  of  filth  and  darkness.  She 
found  no  drunkenness,  no  oaths,  no  obscene  and  wanton  songs,  no 
blasphemy,  no  fighting  or  violence,  no  midnight  cries  of  murder,  no 
stolid  ignorance^of  the  simplest  religious  truth,  no  children  brought  up 
14 


314:  MRS.   KEMBLE. 

to  be  thieves  and  pickpockets,  no  fathers  and  mothers  poisoning  or 
starving  their  little  ones  to  obtain  the  burial-fees,  no  wandering  beg 
gars,  no  work-houses  to  be  the  miserable  refuge  of  cast-off  old  age, 
and  no  necessity  for  an  annual  tax,  to  keep  body  and  soul  together. 
All  this,  and  more,  I  have  proved  to  exist  throughout  the  laboring 
masses  in  England,  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Kay,  transcribed  from 
the  speeches  of  Lord  Ashley,  the  committees  appointed  by  the  British 
Parliament,  the  letters  of  magistrates,  rectors,  and  curates,  from  every 
quarter  of  the  land,  the  author  of  the  book  being  himself  appointed 
by  the  great  University  of  Cambridge  as  a  commissioner,  to  collect 
the  facts  ;  and  having  spent  a  long  period  in  traveling  throughout  the 
kingdom,  in  the  execution  of  his  sad  but  most  important  mission. 

But  there  is  one  fact  recorded  by  Mrs.  Kemble,  which  I  confess 
astonished  me.  And  as  it  is  one  which  is  equally  likely  to  surprise 
my  readers,  I  shall  transcribe  her  words  in  full. 

On  her  visit  to  St.  Simon's  Island,  she  saith :  "  At  the  door,  I 
found  another  petitioner,  a  young  woman  named  Maria,  who  brought 
a  fine  child  in  her  arms,  and  demanded  a  present  of  a  piece  of  flannel. 
Upon  my  asking  her  who  her  husband  was,  she  replied,  without 
much  hesitation,  that  she  did  rot  possess  any  such  appendage.  I 
gave  another  look  at  her  bonny  baby,  and  went  into  the  house  to  get 

the  flannel  for  her.  I  afterwards  heard  from  Mr. that  she  and 

two  other  girls  of  her  age — about  seventeen — were  the  only  instances 
on  the  island  of  women  with  illegitimate  children,"  (pp.  134-5,  Har 
per's  ed.  1863.) 

When  we  look  back  at  Mr.  Kay's  statement  of  bastardy  amongst 
the  English  peasantry,  where  he  informs  us  that  the  cases  amount 
to  fifty-three  per  cent ;  and  then  compare  with  it  the  condition  of  the 
negroes  on  this  plantation,  containing  some  hundreds  of  slaves,  and 
yet  having  only  three  girls  who  were  the  mothers  of  illegitimate  child 
ren  ;  we  can  not  fail  to  see  the  vast  superiority  on  the, side  of  this 
much-abused  institution,  even  in  that  special  point,  which  its  adver 
saries  assume  to  be  most  open  to  reprobation. 

Nor  is  this  the  whole  of  Mrs.  Kemble's  statements.  She  praises 
the  docility  and  affectionate  temper  of  the  slaves.  She  praises  their 
devout  spirit,  their  readiness  to  receive  religious  instruction,  and  their 
attention  to  the  teaching  of  their  own  pious  colored  preacher.  She 
praises  the  attainments  and  character  of  the  slave  who  was  the  en 
gineer,  and  conducted  the  mills  of  the  establishment.  She  praises  the 


MRS.   KEMBLE.  315 

deportment  of  the  young  slave  who  was  her  special  attendant.  She 
describes  the  ball  which  the  slaves  got  up  in  honor  of  her  arrival. 
She  tells  her  readers  that  the  slaves  profess,  at  least,  to  be  contented, 
and  had  no  wish  to  run  away.  She  sets  forth  their  music  and  their 
songs — not  very  poetical,  indeed,  but  free  from  any  thing  like  cor 
ruption.  And  while  she  complains  that  the  driver  was  allowed  to 
carry  a  whip  into  the  field,  and  to  give  twelve  lashes,  but  no  more,  to 
the  disobedient  or  the  lazy,  she  forgets,  or  is  ignorant,  that  in  her 
own  beloved  country,  the  schoolmaster  carried  his  rod,  and  laid  it  on 
his  pupils,  at  his  discretion ;  that  the  system  of  fagging,  in  which 
every  younger  pupil  is  a  servant  to  the  senior,  still  prevails  in  Eng 
land  ;  that  flogging  remains  in  the  army  in  Canada  ;  that  eight 
millions  exist  in  that  happy  kingdom,  who  can  not  read  or  write ; 
that  five  millions  sterling  are  expended  every  year,  to  keep  them 
from  starving;  and  that  they  are  sunk,  by  wretchedness  and  poverty, 
to  the  lowest  degree  of  immorality  and  degradation. 

And,  above  all,  she  forgets  to  compare  the  condition  of  these  slaves 
in  Georgia  with  that  of  the  savages  of  Dahomey,  from  wnich  they 
were  descended.  She  forgets  that  slavery  was  the  only  means  by 
which  they  could  have  been  raised  to  their  present  degree  of  light 
and  civilization.  She  forgets  that  three  thousand  slaves  are  emanci 
pated  by  their  masters,  on  an  average,  every  year.  She  forgets  that 
out  of  these  emancipated  slaves  the  State  of  Liberia  has  sprung  into 
existence,  and  that  the  future  extension  of  the  same  noble  work  will  be 
the  great  instrumentality,  through  which  the  providence  of  the  All-wise 
God  will  redeem,  in  time,  the  whole  vast  continent  of  heathen  Africa, 
thus  making  this  much-abused  institution  a  blessing,  not  only  to  the 
slaves,  but  to  the  world. 

The  bondage  of  Egypt  was  appointed  to  the  Israelites,  as  the  pre 
paratory  state  for  their  establishment  in  Canaan.  There  was  no 
attempt  to  free  them  by  rising  against  their  masters,  or  inciting  them 
to  rebellion,  although  their  numbers  attained  to  six  hundred  thousand 
men,  able  to  bear  arms.  Moses  undertook  the  work,  supposing,  as 
St.  Stephen  saith,  that  "  his  brethren  would  understand  how  that 
God  by  his  hand  would  deliver  them,  but  they  understood  not." 
(Acts  7  :  25.)  The  time  had  not  yet  come.  Moses  was  obliged  to 
flee  from  the  wrath  of  the  king,  and  spend  forty  years  in  humble 
labor  as  a  shepherd,  before  he  was  commissioned  as  their  leader. 
And  then  the  work  was  effected,  by  the  power  of  the  Most  High, 


316  THE  DIVINE  PLAN. 

without  war,  or  tumult,  or  violence.  The  Lord  turned  the  hearts  of 
Pharaoh  and  the  Egyptians,  and  His  people  were  commanded  to  de 
part,  with  gifts  and  offerings,  from  "  the  land  of  bondage." 

So,  when  the  Israelites  were  doomed,. by  the  divine  decree,  to  the 
captivity  in  Babylon,  the  Almighty,  at  the  time  predicted  by  the 
prophet  Jeremiah,  inclined  Cyrus  to  send  them  back  into  Judea,  and 
it  was  accomplished  in  concord  and  in  peace. 

So,  when  slavery  died  out  in  the  nations  of  Europe,  it  was  by  the 
providence  of  God,  through  the  various  changes  of  society.  No  war 
was  made  upon  it,  by  Church  or  State.  But  it  faded  gradually  away, 
without  trouble  or  commotion. 

So,  when  the  slaves  were  emancipated  in  the  West-Indies,  it  was 
done  by  the  British  Parliament,  peaceably  and  legally,  with  an  ap 
prenticeship  of  five  years  to  the  negroes,  and  a  fair  price  paid  to  the 
masters. 

The  only  instance  in  which  slavery  was  abolished,  in  war  and 
blood,  is  the  horrible  case  of  the  St.  Domingo  butcher}^  and  that  was 
the  work  of  an  infidel  French  Directory,  when  every  atrocity  was 
committed  in  Paris,  under  the  names  of  liberty,  equality,  and  frater 
nity.  The  historian  Alison  has  told  us  the  wretched  result  to  the 
negroes  themselves. 

Contemplating  these  facts,  and  looking  to  Liberia,  I  anticipate  the 
time  when  the  same  Almighty  Ruler  will  give  emancipation  to  the 
negro  race  in  the  Southern  States,  by  inclining  the  minds  of  their 
masters  to  adopt  it  on  a  gradual  scale  of  peaceful  and  beneficent  en 
largement.  Not  by  the  red  hand  of  war ;  not  by  a  bloody  and  cruel 
insurrection  ;  not  by  arming  the  blacks  against  the  whites,  which 
would  be  most  likely  to  produce  a  general  massacre  of  the  colored 
population  ;  not  by  keeping  up  a  bitter  and  unceasing  assault  upon 
an  institution  which  is  preparing  a  Christian  host  to  regenerate  the 
barbarous  hordes  of  heathen  Africa ;  not  by  degrading  the  pulpits  of 
the  North,  in  order  to  elevate  the  dogmas  of  ultra-abolitionism  ;  and 
not  by  hostile  attacks  upon  the  Word  of  God,  the  testimony  of  the 
Church,  and  the  Constitution  of  the  country.  But  by  a  faithful  and 
patient  trust  in  the  government  of  divine  Providence,  which  orders 
every  change  among  the  nations  by  the  counsels  of  unerring  wisdom  ; 
by  kindness  and  charitable  forbearance  towards  the  principles  and 
feelings  of  those  who  are  placed  in  different  circumstances  from  our 
own ;  by  a  quiet  abstinence  from  a  busy  intermeddling  with  evils 


THE  DIVINE  PLAN.  317 

which  we  have  no  power  to  correct ;  and  by  a  hopeful  assurance 
that,  if  we  do  not  thwart  the  course  of  things  by  a  dangerous  precipi 
tancy,  the  grace  and  mercy  of  the  Almighty  will  accomplish  all  that 
is  best  for  the  negro  race,  in  His  own  appointed  time.  And  then 
there  will  be  no  blood,  no  desolations,  no  groans,  nor  sighs,  nor  tears, 
to  stain  the  triumph  of  emancipation.  Ethiopia  will  stretch  out  her 
hands  to  the  divine  Redeemer,  and  His  faithful  disciples  will  be  ready 
to  proclaim,  "  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good 
will  towards  men." 


818  SOUTHERN   APPEAL. 


CHAPTER    XLV. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER:  I  shall  now  invite  your  attention, 
and  that  of  my  readers  in  general,  to  the  positive  testimony  of  the 
Southern  clergy,  on  the  subject  of  the  treatment  and  condition  of  the 
slaves  ;  not  derived  from  a  residence  of  six  months  on  a  single  planta 
tion,  but  drawn  from  an  intimate  and  life-long  familiarity  with  all  the 
facts  connected  with  the  institution. 

The  first  evidence  is  entitled  to  serious  consideration  and  respect, 
being  an  extract  from  an  "Appeal  of  Southern  Clergymen,  addressed 
to  Christians  throughout  the  world,"  signed  by  ninety-five  ministers, 
and  representing  all  the  principal  Protestant  denominations.  It  was 
published  in  England,  in  the  Edinburgh  JReview,  as  well  as  in  the 
Southern  States,  and  bears  date  at  Richmond,  April  22,  1863.  I 
omit  all  that  portion  of  this  interesting  document  which  discusses  the 
war,  and  confine  my  extract  to  the  paragraphs  which  concern  my 
special  subject. 

"We  are  aware,"  saith  this  Appeal,  " that  in  respect  to  the  moral 
aspects  of  the  question  of  slavery,  we  differ  from  those  who  conceive 
of  emancipation  as  a  measure  of  benevolence,  and  on  that  account  we 
suffer  much  reproach  which  we  are  conscious  of  not  deserving.  With 
all  the  facts  of  the  system  of  slavery,  in  its  practical  operations  be 
fore  us,  *  as  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  "Word,  having  had 
perfect  knowledge  of  all  things'  on  the  subject  of  which  we  speak,  we 
may  surely  claim  respect  for  our  opinions  and  statements.  Most  of 
us  have  grown  up  from  childhood  among  the  slaves  ;  all  of  us  have 
preached  to  and  taught  them  the  Word  of  Life ;  have  administered 
to  them  the  ordinances  of  the  Christian  Church ;  sincerely  love  them 
as  souls  for  whom  Christ  died  ;  we  go  among  them  freely,  and  know 
them  in  health  and  sickness,  in  labor  and  rest,  from  infancy  to  old 
age.  We  are  familiar  with  their  physical  and  moral  condition,  and 
alive  to  all  their  interests ;  and  we  testify  in  the  sight  of  God,  that 
the  relation  of  master  and  slave  among  us,  however  we  may  deplore 


SOUTHERN   APPEAL.  319 

abuses  in  this,  as  in  other  relations  of  mankind,  is  not  incompatible 
with  our  holy  Christianity,  and  that  the  presence  of  the  Africans  in 
our  land  is  an  occasion  of  gratitude  in  their  behalf,  before  God,  seeing 
that  thereby  Divine  Providence  has  brought  them  where  missionaries 
of  the  Cross  may  freely  proclaim  to  them  the  word  of  salvation,  and 
the  work  is  not  interrupted  by  agitating  fanaticism.  The  South  has 
done  more  than  any  people  on  earth  for  the  Christianization  of  the 
African  race.  The  condition  of  slaves  here  is  not  wretched,  as  North 
ern  fictions  would  have  men  believe,  but  prosperous  and  happy,  and 
would  have  been  yet  more  so,  but  for  the  mistaken  zeal  of  abolition 
ists.  Can  emancipation  obtain  for  them  a  better  portion  ?" 

u  The  practicable  plan  for  benefiting  the  African  race  must  be  the 
providential  plan — the  Scriptural  plan.  We  adopt  that  plan  in  the 
South,  and  while  the  States  should  seek,  by  wholesome  legislation,  to 
regard  the  interest  of  master  and  slave,  we,  as  ministers,  would  preach 
the  Word  to  both,  as  we  are  commanded  of  God.  This  war  has  not 
benefited  the  slaves.  Those  that  have  been  encouraged  or  compelled 
to  leave  their  masters  have  gone,  and  we  aver  can  go,  to  no  state  of 
society  that  offers  them  any  better  things  than  they  have  at  home, 
either  in  respect  to  their  temporal  or  eternal  welfare.  We  regard 
abolitionism  as  an  interference  with  the  plans  of  Divine  Providence. 
It  has  not  the  signs  of  the  Lord's  blessing.  It  is  a  fanaticism  which 
puts  forth  no  good  fruit:  instead  of  blessing,  it  has  brought  forth 
cursing ;  instead  of  love,  hatred ;  instead  of  life,  death  ;  bitterness 
and  sorrow,  and  pain  and  infidelity,  and  moral  degenerac}'',  follow  its 
labors.  We  remember  how  the  Apostle  has  taught  the  minister  of 
Jesus  upon  this  subject,  saying,  'Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under 
the  yoke  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of  all  honor,  that  the  name 
of  God  and  his  doctrine  be  not  blasphemed.  And  they  that  have  be 
lieving  masters,  let  them  not  despise  them  because  they  are  brethren  ; 
but  rather  do  them  service  because  they  are  faithful  and  beloved,  par 
takers  of  the  benefit.  These  things  teach  mid  exhort.  If  any  man 
teach  otherwise,  and  consent  not  to  wholesome  words,  even  the  words 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is  according  to 
godliness,  he  is  proud,  knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about  questions 
and  strifes  of  words,  whereof  cometh  envy,  strife,  railings,  evil  sur- 
misings,  perverse  disputings  of  men  of  corrupt  minds,  and  destitute 
of  the  truth,  supposing  that  gain  is  godliness ;  from  such  withdraw 
thyself." 


320  SOUTHEEN   APPEAL. 

"  This  is  what  we  teach,  and  obedient  to  the  last  verse  of  the  text, 
from  men  that  'teach  otherwise' — hoping  for  peace — we  'withdraw' 
ourselves." 

In  the  notes  appended  to  this  "Appeal,"  the  following  facts  are 
stated,  and  we  can  not  have  a  better  authority  for  their  truth. 

"  From  the  best  sources  of  information,  it  is  ascertained  that  the 
whole  number  of  communicants  in  the  Christian  Churches  of  the 
Confederate  States  is  about  two  millions  and  fifty  thousand." 

"  Of  these,  the  number  of  white  communicants  is  about  one  million 
five  hundred  and  fifty  thousand.  Supposing  the  total  white  population 
to  be  eight  millions,  and  one  half  that  number  to  be  over  eighteen 
years  of  age,  a  little  more  than  one  third  of  the  adult  population  are 
members  of  the  Church  of  Christ." 

"  The  number  of  colored  communicants  is  about  five  hundred  thou 
sand.  Assuming  the  colored  population  to  be  four  millions,  there 
would  be,  upon  the  same  method  of  computation,  one  fourth  of  the 
adult  population  in  union  with  the  Church  of  Christ.  Thus  has  God 
blessed  us  in  gathering  into  his  Church  from  the  children  of  Africa 
more  than  twice  as  many  as  are  reported  from  all  the  converts  in  the 
Protestant  missions  throughout  the  heathen  world." 

I  regard  this  testimony  as  conclusive  as  any  evidence  can  be,  when 
we  remember  that  there  is  no  proof  of  the  contrary  which  can  be  at 
all  compared  with  it  in  number  or  in  value.  And  I  proceed  to  another 
statement  published  by  Bryan  Tyson,  Esq.,  of  North-Carolina,  at 
Washington,  1863,  which  is  important  on  the  two  most  serious  charges 
concerning  evil  treatment  and  marriage. 

"We  shall  look  at  the  institution  of  slavery,"  saith  this  writer,  "in 
a  family  where  there  are  some  thirty  or  forty  servants.  We  find 
among  them  a  good  many  women  and  children,  and  some  old  men 
and  women  who  are  not  able  to  do  regular  field  labor.  So,  out  of  the 
whole,  we  shall  probably  not  get  more  than  four  ninths  who  are  regu 
lar  field-hands.  The  children  play  about  at  their  sports,  the  white 
and  black  almost  invariably  together,  until  they  reach  a  proper  age 
to  be  put  to  work,  which  is  light  at  first,  but  as  they  grow  older, 
gradually  assumes  a  heavier  form,  until  they  can  do  any  work  belong 
ing  to  the  farm.  They  thus  continue  to  labor,  and  in  the  course  of 
time,  declining  years  set  in,  and  they  cease  to  be  regular  field-hands 
any  longer.  They  have  now  some  light  work  assigned  to  them,  such 
as  boiling  food,  feeding  stock,  looking  after  the  children,  etc.  Thus, 


BRYAN   TYSON.  321 

of  the  three  stages,  youth,  maturity,  and  old  age,  through  which  the 
servants  pass,  there  is  but  one  in  which  they  are  relied  on  as  regular 
laborers.  In  childhood  and  in  old  age,  they  are  well  taken  care  of, 
and  thus  the  whole  slave  population  is  rendered  self-supporting.  So, 
of  the  3,953,760  slaves  that  were  in  the  United  States  in  1860,  there 
was  not  one  supported  by  a  public  tax.  Such  an  instance,  I  presume, 
is  unknown  among  an  equal  number  of  the  industrial  classes,  any 
where  in  the  civilized  world.  I  will  ask  where  else  on  the  face  of  the 
globe  could  you  go  to  find,  in  a  population  of  nearly  four  millions,  no 
paupers?"  (Pamphlet  on  the  Institution  of  Slavery,  etc.,  by  Bryan 
Tyson,  p.  8-9.) 

44  The  servants  at  the  South,  for  the  most  part,  receive  good  treat 
ment,  as  is  evident  from  the  census  returns  of  1860.  During  that 
year  there  were  3000  servants  manumitted,  and  803  escaped  to  the 
North,  making  a  total  loss  to  the  slave  population  of  3803.  Taking 
this  as  the  average  for  the  past  decade,  there  would  have  been  a  loss 
to  the  slave  population  of  38,030.  But  with  these  odds  against  them, 
the  slave  population  at  the  South  increased  during  the  decade  ending 
in  1860  no  less  than  23.39  per  cent,  while  the  free  blacks,  after  being 
augmented  by  about  38,030,  increased  only  12.33  per  cent.  The 
women,  at  times  when  their  health  .is  delicate,  are  not  required  to 
labor,  being  taken  about  as  good  care  of  as  a  member  of  the  white 
family  under  similar  circumstances." 

44  The  servants  at  the  South  are  not  only,  generally  speaking,  well 
treated,  but  becoming  respect  is  also  shown  to  them  in  old  age.  The 
white  children  are  even  taught  to  call  the  elderly  servants  uncle  or 
aunt,  as  the  case  may  be.  I  was  thus  brought  up  myself,  and  it  still 
appears  natural  for  me  to  do  so."  (Ib.  p.  10-1.) 

44  As  regards  evil  treatment,  I  admit  that  there  are  a  few  who  do 
not  treat  their  servants  well,  but  the  number  is  small  in  comparison 
with  those  who  do  treat  them  well.  The  time  has  never  been,  and 
probably  never  will  be,  when,  in  a  population  of  four  millions  of 
people,  whether  they  be  bond  or  free,  there  will  not  be  some  acts  of 
violence  committed  on  the  weak  and  inoffensive."  (Ib.  p.  27.) 

44  The  past  summer,  a  year  ago,  I  was  at  a  friend's  house  in  Chat 
ham  County,  North-Carolina,  who  owned  a  good  many  servants.  It 
was  in  time  of  wheat-harvest.  About  dusk,  the  hands  came  in  from 
their  laborious  work.  It  would  seem  that  all  might  have  been  tired 
enough  without  seeking  farther  exercise  in  diversions ;  but  not  so. 
14* 


322  BRYAN   TYSON". 

After  supper  the  banjo  was  brought  forth,  and  preparations  made  for 
a  social  dance.  They  soon  struck  up  in  high  glee.  I  remarked  to 
my  friend  that  negroes  enjoyed  a  great  deal  of  satisfaction  and  pleas 
ure.  Yes,  said  he,  the  most  of  any  people  in  the  world.  He  told 
me  that  wishing  to  finish  a  certain  field  of  grain,  they  had  labored 
very  hard  that  day.  But  one  would  not  have  judged  so  from  present 
appearances.  When  I  went  to  rest,  they  were  still  in  the  midst  of 
their  glee,  their  busy  feet  keeping  time  to  the  music."  (Ib.  p.  12.) 

The  writer  states  another  fact,  which  gives  a  stronger  proof  of  the 
estimation  attached  by  the  negroes  to  their  condition.  "  The  com 
fort  of  the  bond-servant  is  such,"  saith  he,  "  that  I  have  actually 
known  free  persons  of  color  to  choose  their  masters  and  voluntarily 
enslave  themselves.  This  may  appear  very  singular  to  us,  but  unless 
they  expected  to  better  their  circumstances  it  is  still  more  strange 
that  they  should  thus  voluntarily  give  away  their  liberty."  (Ib. 
p.  13.) 

In  answer  to  the  prevailing  opinion  at  the  North  that  the  slaves 
are  never  legally  married,  Mr.  Tyson  makes  the  following  statement, 
which  is  worthy  of  great  attention  : 

"  A  great  many  of  the  servants  are  married  after  book  form  ;  and 
they  all,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  extends,  have  their  choice  in  this 
matter,  whether  to  be  married  after  book  form,  or  cohabit  under  a 
vow.  The  essential  part  of  the  marriage  contract  consists  in  a  solemn 
vow  between  the  parties,  and  a  faithful  observance  thereof.  The 
servants  that  cohabit  under  a  vow  are  fully  as  faithful  to  their  com 
panions  as  those  who  are  married  after  book  form,  and  in  both  cases 
they  are  generally  true  to  their  engagements."  (Ib.  p.  22-3.) 

And  with  regard  to  the  separation  of  families,  the  writer  saith  : 
"  In  a  sojourn  of  over  twenty  years  at  the  South,  I  have  known  but 
very  few  cases  where  a  man  and  his  wife  were  parted.  There  is  a 
disposition  among  the  people  to  keep  them  together  as  much  as  pos 
sible.  But  I  should  be  glad  to  see  laws  passed  at  the  South  to 
prohibit  a  man  and  his  wife  from  being  separated  under  any  and  all 
circumstances,  and  such  is  now  the  case  in  some  of  the  States."  (Ib. 
p.  26-7.) 

On  the  comparative  advantages  to  the  slave  over  the  free  laborer, 
the  writer  remarks  as  follows  : 

"  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  relations  existing  between  a 
master  and  his  servant  are  quite  different  from  those  existing  between 


BRYAN   TYSON.  323 

the  same  person  and  a  hired  servant.  In  the  one  case  he  is  con 
sidered  and  treated  as  a  member  of  the  family  ;  in  the  other,  but 
little  regard  is  manifested  for  him  after  receiving  his  wages,  and 
he  is  able  to  obtain  but  few  favors — only  such  as  he  can  purchase 
with  his  money — which  in  many  instances  are  fewer  than  the  bond 
servant  enjoys."  (Ib.  p.  26.) 

Of  the  feelings  expressed  by  the  freed  negroes,  the  writer  gives 
some  instances  which  fell  under  his  own  observation : 

"  A  negro  man  (one  of  the  lately  emancipated  servants)  told  me  in 
the  streets  of  Newborn,  that  he  was  not  as  free  now  as  he  was  before 
he  came  into  the  Federal  lines.  And  also  that  he  fared  better,  par 
ticularly  in  sickness,  for,  said  he,  when  I  got  sick,  I  had  some  person 
to  bring  medicine  to  me ;  but  it  is  not  so  now." 

"  A  woman  that  had  belonged  to  a  gentleman  who  owned  some 
three  hundred  of  those  people,  said  she  fared  better  and  was  better 
contented  before  obtaining  her  freedom  than  she  had  been  since." 

"  And  an  old  colored  person  with  whom  I  conversed  at  the  market- 
house,  in  this  city,  (Washington,)  but  a  few  days  ago,  said  that  a 
good  many  years  before,  his  master,  living  in  South-Carolina,  eman 
cipated  himself  and  family,  consisting  of  his  wife  and  seven  children — 
four  boys  and  three  daughters — and  gave  them  money  to  pay  their 
expenses  to  a  free  State.  He  said  that  at  first  he  hailed  this  change 
with  much  joy,  as  he  expected  to  get  aid  from  his  children  ;  but  they 
had  all  scattered  off,  his  wife  was  dead,  and  he  was  dependent  on 
his  own  labor  for  support,  and  now,  being  very  old,  he  was  ill  able 
to  labor.  I  asked  him  which  situation  he  would  prefer,  to  be  back 
with  his  master,  or  live  the  way  he  was  now  living  ?  He  said  that 
his  master  was  a  good  and  kind  man,  and  if  he  was  now  back  with 
him,  he  would  never  consent  to  leave  him  again.  Said  he,  I  then 
had  some  time  to  rest,  but  I  have  none  now."  (Ib.  p.  31-2.) 

This  testimony  from  a  witness  who  speaks  with  a  perfect  know 
ledge  of  the  truth,  is  more  minute  than  the  Appeal  from  the  95 
Southern  clergy,  but  it  is  in  entire  accordance  with  it,  and  must  go 
far,  with  any  impartial  mind,  to  correct  many  of  the  most  popu 
lar  prejudices  against  the  Southern  institution.  But  I  shall  add 
one  more  extract  from  a  different  quarter,  before  I  dismiss  the  topic, 
and  then  hasten  to  my  conclusion. 


324:  REV.    DR.    CUMMINS. 


CHAPTER  XL VI. 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Amongst  the  great  number  of  dis 
courses  published  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Southern  States,  I 
shall  select  for  my  readers  a  portion  of  one  \vhich  was  delivered  by 
the  Rev.  George  D.  Cummins,  D.D.,  in  St.  Peter's  Church,  Baltimore, 
January  4,  1861.  The  title  of  this  able  and  eloquent  sermon  ex 
presses  the  leading  idea  of  most  of  the  Southern  clergy  :  "  THE  AF 
RICAN  A  TRUST  FROM  GOD  TO  THE  AMERICAN."  And  I  shall  confine 
myself  to  that  part  of  it  in  which  this  position  is  maintained. 

"  By  the  light  of  Scripture,  and  the  history  of  the  early  Church," 
saith  Dr.  Cummins,  "  a  Christian  man  whose  lot  is  cast  amidst 
slavery  in  this  age  and  nation,  is  enabled  to  ascertain  his  duty  to 
wards  it— and  that  is  :" 

"  To  regard  the  African  race  in  bondage  (and  in  freedom  too)  as 
a  solemn  trust  committed  to  this  people  from  God,  and  that  He  has 
given  to  us  the  great  mission  of  working  out  His  purposes  of  mercy 
and  love  towards  them.  The  Anglo-American,  the  tutelar  guardian 
of  the  African — this  is  the  lofty  view  to  which  we  now  rise.  It  is  a 
study  of  intense  interest  to  trace  the  workings  of  God's  Providence 
in  the  mode  He  has  chosen  to  effect  His  purposes  concerning  these 
children  of  Ham.  He  has  linked  together,  by  a  counsel  of  infinite 
wisdom,  the  destiny  of  two  races,  more  diverse  from  each  other  than 
any  two  upon  the  globe.  By  the  silver  thread  of  His  Providence  the 
weakest  race  on  the  earth  ha?  been  joined  to  the  strongest,  the  oldest 
to  the  newest,  the  most  repulsive  barbarism  to  the  highest  civili 
zation,  the  darkest  superstition  to  the  brightest  and  purest  Christ 
ianity." 

"  Other  races  have  at  different  periods  of  history  been  brought  into 
close  and  intimate  relations  with  the  African  race,  as  the  Roman  and 
the  Castilian,  but  not  to  these  has  God  intrusted  this  great  work. 
To  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  the  American  has  he  reserved  the  high 
honor." 


REV.    DR.    CUMMINS.  325 

"  God  has  brought  these  people  to  our  doors,  and  placed  them  in 
our  homes,  and  said  to  us  by  His  Providence  :  '  Take  this  child  and 
nurse  it  for  me,  and  I  will  give  thee  wages.'  It  is  a  sublime  trust, 
a  stupendous  work  worthy  of  the  genius  of  this  Christian  nation,  to 
train,  to  discipline  a  race,  to  prepare  them  to  work  out  the  destiny  of 
a  continent  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  the  same  race.  We 
believe  this  to  be  the  design  of  God,  in  the  presence  and  condition  of 
the  African  in  this  land.  And.  it  is  for  us  to  decide  whether  we  will 
fulfill  this  high  mission,  or  fail  ignominiously  under  it.  We  can  not 
decline  the  trust ;  it  is  ours  by  inheritance,  and  not^by  our  seeking. 
We  can  not  escape  from  its  responsibilities  if  we  would.  But  how 
shall  we  best  fulfill  that  trust  ?  This  question  involves  and  deter 
mines  our  duty  towards  the  African  in  servitude.  How  shall  we 
prove  ourselves  their  truest  friends — their  best  guardians  ?  How 
discharge  our  duty  towards  them  in  the  light  of  our  duty  to  the 
Master  whom  we  serve  ?  Will  it  be  by  seeking  hastily  and  violently 
to  change  their  condition,  and  bid  them  go  forth  from  under  our 
guardianship  ?,  As  well  might  we  turn  from  our  doors  our  children 
of  tender  years,  and  send  them  forth,  helpless,  into  the  world,  expos 
ed  to  every  evil.  It  has  been  well  and  truthfully  said  that  '  if  the 
South  should,  at  this  moment,  surrender  every  slave,  the  wisdom  of 
the  entire  world,  united  in  solemn  council,  could  not  solve  the  ques 
tion  of  their  disposal.'  But  we  may  add,  that  the  Providence  of  God 
will  solve  it,  in  His  own  time,  if  we  do  not  rashly  thwart  His  plans, 
by  our  short-sighted  schemes.  It  may,  indeed,  be  a  long  time  before 
He  develops  all  His  purposes  towards  the  African  race,  and,  like 
ancient  Israel,  He  may  prolong  the  time  of  their  discipline.  But  in 
all  His  sublime  arrangements,  there  is  ever  the  same  slow  and  stately 
movement,  ever  the  absence  of  all  haste.  It  required  four  thousand 
years  to  prepare  the  world  for  the  advent  of  Christianity  ;  and  it  may 
require  four  thousand  more  to  extend  its  triumphs  over  the  whole 
earth. — But  we  can  well  be  patient  and  wait  on  Him,  with  whom  a 
thousand  years  are  as  one  day,"  (p.  19-22.) 

After  giving  a  full  account  of  the  great  attention  paid  at  the  South 
to  the  religious  instruction  of  the  slaves,  Rev.  Dr.  Cummins  proceeds 
to  make  the  following  interesting  statement : 

"  To  a  Christian  slaveholder,  his  slaves  occupy  a  relation  scarcely 
inferior  to  that  of  children  ;  they  form  part  of  his  household,  and  for 
their  temporal  and  eternal  welfare  he  feels  himself  responsible  to  God. 


326  EEV.    DE.   CUMMINS. 

How  profound  is  this  feeling  of  responsibility,  I  can  attest  from  a 
personal  residence  among  the  pious  masters  of  Virginia ;  I  '  speak 
that  which  I  know,  and  testify  that  which  I  have  seen.'  It  was  my 
lot  to  minister  at  the  altar  of  a  church  where,  along  with  three  hun 
dred  whites,  fifty  slaves  knelt  by  them  to  receive  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  supper.  I  have  seen  the  master  standing  at  the  chancel 
of  the  church  to  act  as  sponsor  in  baptism  for  a  faithful  slave  who 
came  forward  to  receive  the  sacred  rite.  I  have  seen  Christian 
women  of  the  highest  refinement  and  social  position,  sitting  down  on 
every  Lord's  day  in  the  midst  of  the  classes  of  a  Sunday-school  of 
slaves,  to  instruct  them  in  the  knowledge  of  salvation.  I  have  known 
the  slave  girl  in  consumption  to  be  taken  into  the  chamber  of  her 
mistress,  and  nursed  with  a  care  equal  to  a  mother's  tenderness,  and 
the  passage  to  the  grave  illumined  by  the  light  of  Christian  sympathy 
and  love.  And  I  have  seen  a  congregation  of  three  thousand  slaves 
presided  over  by  their  regular  pastor,  the  President  of  a  College,  at 
the  close  of  each  sermon  responding  to  the  catechetical  instruction 
concerning  the  truths  preached." 

"But  it  will  be  said  that,  according  to  the  example  of  the  Apostles 
and  the  early  Christians,  our  whole  duty  towards  slavery  is  not  ful 
filled  until  we  do  our  part  to  correct  its  abuses  and  remove  the  evils 
attendant  upon  it — and  we  freely  admit  this.  It  is  our  part  and 
duty,  following  in  the  steps  of  the  Apostles,  to  tell  both  masters  and 
servants  of  their  mutual  duties,  and  to  warn  them  against  abusing 
the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  each  other — to  say  to  the  servant, 
4  Obey  your  master  in  singleness  of  heart,  as  unto  the  Lord' — to  say 
to  the  masters,  '  Give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is  just  and  equal.' 
And  we  firmly  and  earnestly  believe  that  there  is  not  an  evil  con 
nected  with  slavery,  as  it  now  exists  in  the  Southern  States,  which 
in  due  time  would  not  be  corrected  and  removed  by  the  force  of 
Christian  sentiment,  enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  guided  by 
the  Word  of  God.  There  is  power  enough  in  the  Christianity  of 
the  South  to  grapple  with  and  solve  all  the  difficulties  of  this  great 
question,  if  left  unhindered  l)y  interference  from  without,"  (p. 
25-6.) 

I  might  fill  a  volume  with  similar  testimony  from  bishops,  clergy 
men,  and  laymen ;  but  this  may  suffice  to  prove  the  general  fact,  to 
which  there  are  few  exceptions,  namely,  that  the  Southern  slave 
holders  are  just  and  kind  to  their  slaves,  and  that  the  negro  race, 


TREATMENT.  327 

under  their  care,  are  far  better  provided  for,  both  temporally  and 
spiritually,  than  the  laboring  classes  in  England,  or  the  free  negroes 
among  ourselves. 

My  own  personal  acquaintance  with  the  institution  is  very  trifling, 
being  limited  to  a  residence  of  three  weeks  in  St.  Louis  and  New- 
Orleans,  during  the  delivery  of  a  course  of  lectures — about  as  long  in 
Richmond,  at  our  General  Convention,  in  1859,  where  you  were  also 
present,  and  afterwards,  some  three  months  in  Tennessee.  All  the 
slaves  with  wrhom  I  came  in  contact  on  these  occasions  were  house- 
servants  ;  but  a  superior  class  of  domestics  I  have  never  seen,  nor  has 
it  ever  been  my  lot  to  witness  so  much  kindliness  of  feeling  towards 
servants  as  seemed  to  exist  towards  these,  from  all  the  members  of 
the  family. 

I  can  not,  however,  pretend  to  any  knowledge  personally  of  the 
condition  of  the  slaves  upon  the  plantations.  But  I  conversed  largely 
on  the  subject  with  our  episcopal  and  clerical  brethren,  in  whose  state 
ments  I  could  place  the  most  absolute  confidence;  and  it  wras  impos 
sible  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  generous  credulity  of  the  North 
had  been  grossly  deluded  with  respect  to  the  treatment  of  the  slaves  ; 
that  the  cases  of  severe  or  inhuman  usage  were  rare  and  exceptional, 
and  that,  as  a  general  rule,  the  negroes  were  really  what  the  Southern 
people  esteemed  them — the  happiest  laborers  in  the  world. 

But  what  then,  it  may  be  asked,  are  we  to  make  of  the  strong  dis 
like  expressed  towards  slavery  by  Washington,  Jefferson,  and  many 
of  the  eminent  men  \vho  formed  the  Constitution  ?  What  of  the 
efforts  made,  after  their  day,  to  abolish  it  in  Virginia  and  Kentucky  ? 
And  what  of  the  array  of  facts  collected  and  published,  in  positive 
proof  of  the  terrible  barbarity  connected  with  the  system  ? 

I  answer  that  all  this  is  freely  admitted  as  a  very  reasonable  ground 
for  objecting  to  the  institution,  if  it  were  an  original  question.  And 
it  may  also  warrant  a  strong  desire  that  it  might  be  abolished  as  soon 
as  it  can  be,  peaceably,  justly,  and  wisely  for  the  interests  of  all  con 
cerned.  But  it  furnishes  no  ground  for  denouncing  it  as  a  sin  to  hold 
a  slave,  when  he  is  properly  treated — no  ground  for  supposing  that 
the  slaves  are  not  generally  treated  well — no  ground  for  abusing  the 
Constitution  which  provides  for  slavery,  and  which  Washington  and 
all  his  colleagues  approved ;  and  especially  no  ground  for  imputing 
iniquity  to  a  social  relation  which  was  sanctioned  both  by  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testament,  which  was  held  to  be  lawful  before  God  by 


328  WASHINGTON  AND  OTHERS. 

the  voice  of  the  Universal  Church  for  more  than  eighteen  centuries, 
and  which  is  still  allowed  by  the  vast  majority  of  Christians  at  the 
present  day.  Let  us  examine  the  objections,  however,  a  little  more 
particularly. 

With  respect  to  the  wish  expressed  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  by 
Washington,  Jefferson,  and  others,  I  have  over  and  over  again  main 
tained  the  same  opinion,  that  such  a  measure  was  highly  expedient 
and  desirable,  and  have  further  endeavored  to  show  how  it  might  be 
effected.  But  did  these  great  men  esteem  it  a  sin  to  hold  slaves  ?  The 
notion  is  absurd,  because  it  is  notorious  that  they  were  slaveholders 
themselves  to  the  end  of  their  days.  Or  did  they  even  make  any  sys 
tematic  effort  in  Virginia  to  have  slavery  abolished  ?  They  certainly 
did  not.  And  if  they  had  made  such  an  effort,  is  it  possible  to  suppose 
that  they  would  have  insisted,  like  the  ultra-abolitionist,  upon  imme 
diate  emancipation,  and  have  thus  nullified  the  provisions  of  the  Con 
stitution  which  they  had  just  approved  ?  Surely  such  folly  and  incon 
sistency  could  never  be  imputed  to  those  distinguished  patriots  by 
any  one  who  has  not  himself  lost  his  reason. 

The  truth  is  that  the  abhorrence  of  these  great  men  was  most  pro 
bably  produced  by  the  slave-trade,  which  was  not  given  up  until  1808, 
and  which  brought  into  the  South,  every  year,  fresh  importations  of 
the  wretched  Africans,  in  their  savage  state,  the  civilizing  and  instruct 
ing  of  wrhom  must  have  been  a  very  distressing  and  difficult  task  to 
the  planters  at  the  South — a  task  which,  doubtless,  they  would  gladly 
have  avoided  if  it  had  been  in  their  power.  But  it  is  against  all  reason 
to  suppose  that  the  fathers  of  the  American  Constitution  could  ever 
have  given  the  slightest  countenance  to  our  modern  ultra-abolitionism, 
which  was  not  heard  of  until  some  years  after  they  were  in  their 
graves.  Washington  died  in  1V99,  Jefferson  in  1826,  and  the  emanci 
pation  of  the  slaves  in  the  British  West-Indies,  which  gave  birth  to 
ultra-abolitionism,  did  not  take  place  until  1834,  eight  years  after 
wards. 

The  plan  of  abolition  advocated  in  Virginia  and  Kentucky  by  Mr. 
Randolph  and  Mr.  Clay,  was  not  rested  on  the  modern  absurdity  that 
slaveholding  was  a  sin,  because  they  also,  as  well  as  Washington  and 
Jefferson,  were  slaveholders  all  their  lives.  Neither  was  it  a  plan  of 
immediate  but  of  gradual  abolition,  like  that  which  Pennsylvania 
and  many  other  States  had  adopted  long  before.  Between  their  views 
and  my  own  there  is  no  difference. 


STORIES  OF  CRUELTY.  329 

And  with  regard  to  the  array  of  facts  collected  by  the  gifted  Mrs. 
Sto\ve  and  others,  I  do  not  question  their  truth ;  but  I  deny  that  they 
afford  any  ground  for  impeaching  the  lawfulness  of  the  institution,  so 
far  as  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  is  concerned,  because  they  are 
all  cases  of  abuse,  which  are  not  the  proper,  much  less  the  necessary 
results  of  the  institution ;  on  the  contrary,  they  are  transgressions 
against  the  rules  laid  down  to  the  master  in  the  Word  of  God,  and 
therefore  sins  before  heaven.  No  maxim  is  better  settled  than  this, 
namely,  that  the  abuse  of  a  thing  does  not  take  away  the  use  of  it. 
If  it  were  otherwise,  every  relation  in  life  would  be  destroyed,  for 
there  is  not  one  amongst  them  that  is  not  abused  continually. 

Suppose,  for  example,  that  the  same  industry  were  applied  to  the 
relation  of  man  and  wife,  and  that  some  feminine  advqcate  of  the 
Free-love  notion  were  to  advertise  in  the  city  of  New- York  that  she 
was  ready  to  listen  to  the  complaints  of  ever}r  poor  woman  who  had 
a  cruel,  a  dissipated,  or  a  faithless  husband,  and  give  her  relief.  Is 
there  any  doubt  that  such  a  philanthropist  would  be  thronged  with 
visitors,  and  that  the  tales  of  domestic  suffering — many  of  them  most 
sad  and  heart-breaking — would  be  numerous  enough  to  fill  a  volume 
in  a  very  short  time  ?  Fifty  such  stories  would  make  a  respectable 
book,  and  if  related  with  the  talent  of  Mrs.  Stowe  or  Mrs.  Kemble, 
would  certainly  be  painfully  interesting.  What  then  ?  Granting 
that  they  were  all  true,  as  many  of  them  unquestionably  would  be, 
could  they  authorize  any  man  to  conclude  that  all  the  other  wives  in 
the  city  were  equally  abused,  that  abuse  is  therefore  inseparable  from 
marriage,  that  marriage  is  consequently  a  sin  against  humanity,  and 
hence,  that  the  institution  itself  should  be  abolished  without  delay  ? 

The  population  of  New-York  is  about  eight  hundred  thousand.  I 
presume  that  amongst  the  whole  there  must  be  at  least  one  tenth 
who  are  married  women,  which  would  give  us  eighty  thousand  wives 
to  be  sent  adrift,  on  account  of  the  abuse  suffered  by  fifty  or  one  hun 
dred  !  Is  there  any  reason,  justice,  or  even  common-sense  in  this  ? 
Yet  such  is  precisely  the  logic  of  the  ultra-abolitionist  when  he  makes 
the  narrative  of  some  hundred  instances  of  cruelty  a  reason  for  the 
immediate  emancipation,  not  of  eighty  thousand,  but  four  million  of 
Southern  slaves. 

But  judging  fairly  by  the  rules  of  evidence,  notwithstanding  my 
own  habits  and  sympathies  are  in  nowise  partial  to  the  institution,  I 
can  not  doubt  that  these  cases  of  abuse  are  mere  exceptions,  and  that 


330  SOUTHERN  TESTIMONY. 

the  general  treatment  which  the  slaves  receive  is  such  as  would  be 
come  a  Christian  people.  For  such,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  positive 
evidence  of  the  most  competent  witnesses.  And  I  can  see  no  reason 
why  it  should  be  otherwise.  It  is  natural  that  the  master  should  use 
them  kindly,  because  they  are  a  part  of  his  own  family ;  and  harsh 
treatment  would  not  only  prevent  their  laboring  cheerfully  and  pro 
fitably,  but  would  provoke  them  to  mischief  or  tempt  them  to  run 
away.  It  is  natural  that  he  should  regard  them  with  affection,  and 
desire  that  they  should  regard  him  with  affection  in  return ;  for  how- 
can  a  man,  who  loves  even  his  horse  and  his  dog,  fail  to  love  a  human 
being  who  works  for  his  benefit,  and  looks  up  to  him  for  protection 
and  support  ?  And  when,  to  the  ordinary  sympathies  of  nature,  we 
add  the  duty  of  religion  in  the  case  of  those  who  are  Christians,  how 
manifest  does  it  seem  that  the  treatment  of  the  slave,  as  a  general 
rule,  must  be  in  accordance  with  justice,  benevolence,  and  conscien 
tious  care  ? 

That  it  is  so,  is  proved  by  the  direct  testimony  of  the  Southern 
clergy,  and  by  these  unquestionable  facts  besides :  First,  that  not 
withstanding  all  the  inducements  held  out  by  ultra-abolitionists,  only 
eight  hundred  and  three  slaves  out  of  four  millions,  (or  one  in  five 
thousand,)  abandoned  their  master  in  the  year  1860,  while  three  thou 
sand  were  voluntarily  emancipated.  Secondly,  that  during  the  three 
years  of  this  mournful  war,  the  great  body  of  the  slaves  have  been 
faithful  and  attached.  There  has  been  no  taking  advantage  of  the 
absence  of  the  male  members  of  the  family — no  rising  into  insurrec 
tions — and  no  apprehensions  entertained  by  the  white  population  that 
any  disturbance  would  occur,  unless  they  were  alienated  and  per 
verted  by  hostile  influences  from  some  other  quarter.  This  fact  alone 
is  worth  more  than  a  volume  of  individual  testimony,  and  ought  to 
be  decisive  on  the  question. 

It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that  the  declarations  of  Southern  men  should 
be  put  out  of  view,  because  they  are  interested  in  the  maintenance  of 
slavery,  and  it  is  a  sound  rule  of  law  that  no  man  is  a  competent  wit 
ness  in  his  own  cause.  But  this  rule  is  limited  to  matters  of  private 
and  individual  dispute,  and  operates  only  on  the  parties  who  appear 
before  a  court  of  justice.  Whereas  this  controversy  involves  an  in 
stitution  which  affects  the  whole  of  the  Southern  States,  and  therefore 
the  people  of  the  South  are  the  proper  judges  of  its  practical  results 
amon01  them.  If  it  were  a  Northern  institution,  the  men  of  the  North 


THE  FAIR  EULE.  331 

vrould  be  the  best  witnesses.  But  being  a  Southern  institution,  the 
men  of  the  South  must  know  it  far  better  than  we  do.  It  is  thus 
that  we  deal  with  all  great  questions.  We  do  not  expect  a  foreign 
traveler  to  do  justice  to  our  American  system.  We  say,  and  say 
truly,  that  he  does  not  understand  it ;  and  we  claim  the  right  to  be 
its  exponents  ourselves.  We  say  that  even  the  different  portions  of 
these  United  States  can  not  form  a  fair  estimate  of  each  other ;  that 
Southern  men  do  not  and  can  not  appreciate  the  merits  of  the  North 
ern  character,  while  Northern  men  are  just  as  liable  to  err  concerning 
the  South.  There  is,  indeed,  nothing  more  rare  amongst  the  best  and 
most  enlightened  persons,  than  the  disposition  to  make  a  kindly  and 
liberal  estimate  of  customs,  laws,  or  habits  with  which  they  have  not 
been  thoroughly  familiarized;  and  the  difficulty  is  greatly  increased 
when  the  institutions  of  a  country  are  opposed  to  the  ideas  and  sym 
pathies  which  we  have  cherished  from  infancy.  Hence,  in  order  to 
be  really  just  to  other  states  of  society,  we  must  try  to  put  ourselves, 
as  much  as  possible,  in  their  position  ;  and  this  we  can  only  do  by 
placing  all  reasonable  confidence  in  what  they  say  of  themselves,  in 
those  open  and  public  documents  which  they  set  before  the  world. 

Instead  of  this,  however,  the  ordinary  course  is  to  regard  the  insti 
tution  from  our  own  stand-point,  as  if  it  were  a  controversy  about 
the  propriety  of  making  slaves  of  freemen.  Hence  the  popular  ques 
tion,  which  so  many  take  for  a  convincing  argument :  "  How  would 
you  like  to  be  a  slave  ?"  They  forget  that  the  history  of  the  matter 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  enslaving  of  any  freeman.  They  forget 
that  these  Southern  slaves,  so  far  as  we  know,  have  never  been  free, 
at  least  for  centuries — that  their  ancestors  were  slaves  amongst  the 
barbarous  and  heathen  tribes  of  Africa — that  their  Southern  masters 
have  not  deprived  them  of  any  right  which  they  possessed  before,  but 
have,  on  the  contrary,  raised  them  up  from  the  lowest  depths  of 
pagan  darkness  to  be  Christian  men  and  women,  and  have  bestowed 
liberty  upon  thousands  every  year,  from  whom  the  State  of  Liberia 
has  taken  its  rise,  giving  the  best  ground  for  hope  that  millions  of 
these  Southern  negroes  will  in  due  time  issue  from  the  South,  to  be 
the  missionaries  to  their  fatherland,  and  regenerate  that  savage  con 
tinent  by  the  power  of  the  Gospel.  And  they  forget  that  the  South, 
having  in  truth  done  more  to  elevate  the  African  race  than  all  the 
world  besides,  have  a  right  to  consider  the  work  as  belonging  to 


332  NO    PAUPERISM. 

themselves,  in  the  order  of  Providence,  and  should  be  permitted  to 
carry  it  on,  without  reproach  or  interference,  in  their  own  way. 

There  is  another  popular  notion  which  does  very  little  credit  to 
our  Northern  understanding,  and  that  is  the  strangely  absurd  state 
ment  that  the  negro  slave  gets  nothing  for  his  labor !  On  the  con 
trary,  it  is  demonstrable  that  he  receives  a  larger  compensation,  on 
the  whole,  than  any  of  us  would  choose  to  pay,  in  the  support  of 
himself  from  his  birth  to  his  burial,  and  the  support  besides  of  his 
wife  and  children,  in  sickness  and  in  health,  in  childhood  and  old 
age,  without  any  danger  of  the  poor-house,  or  of  begging,  or  of  starva 
tion.  Mrs.  Kemble  herself  states  that  the  slaves  had  not  only  a  reg 
ular  allowance  of  food  and  clothing,  but  also  had  a  garden-spot  at 
tached  to  their  cottages,  and  were  free  to  raise  all  sorts  of  fowls, 
except  turkeys,  for  their  own  use,  while  a  regular  physician  was  em 
ployed  to  attend  to  their  diseases.  I  doubt  whether  any  Northern 
farmer  or  manufacturer  would  be  willing  to  make  the  same  bargain 
with  his  laborers.  I  doubt  whether  he  would  think  himself  likely  to 
clear  as  much  profit  from  their  work  as  he  does  now,  when  he  only 
pays  for  what  is  actually  done,  and  is  at  no  expense  for  house,  or  lot, 
or  food,  or  clothing,  or  children,  or  old  age,  or  sickness,  or  burial. 
And  the  superiority  of  advantage  to  the  negro  is  sufficiently  plain,  if 
the  reader  considers  the  immense  amounts  paid  yearly  in  our  North 
ern  States  for  the  support  of  the  poor,  and  then  remembers  that 
among  the  four  millions  of  Southern  slaves  there  is  not  one  pauper 
dependent  on  public  charity. 


THEODORE  PARKER.  333 


CHAPTER    XLVIL 

RIGHT  REVEREND  BROTHER  :  Amongst  the  prominent  and  admired 
antagonists  of  the  Southern  institution,  the  late  Theodore  Parker  oc 
cupied  a  conspicuous  place ;  and  a  few  extracts  from  his  autobi 
ography  may  be  instructive  as  a  convincing  proof,  that  the  philan 
thropy  of  the  great  leaders  in  ultra-abolitionism  has  no  affinity  with 
the  religion  of  the  Bible.  I  quote  from  the  recent  volumes  containing 
his  "Life  and  Correspondence,  by  John  Weiss,"  published  by  the 
Messrs.  Appleton. 

Speaking  of  the  results  of  his  theological  studies,  while  preparing 
for  the  ministry,  Mr.  Parker  presents  us  with  this  frank  statement  of 
infidelity,  in  the  appendix  to  the  second  volume,  p.  454,  viz. : 

"  I  studied,"  saith  he,  "  the  historical  development  of  religion  and 
theolog}r  amongst  Jews  and  Christians,  and  saw  the  gradual  forma 
tion  of  the  great  ecclesiastical  doctrines  which  so  domineered  over 
the  world.  As  I  found  the  Bible  was  the  work  of  men,  so  I  also 
found  that  the  Christian  Church  was  no  more  divine  than  the  British 
State,  a  Dutchman's  shop,  or  an  Austrian  farm.  The  miraculous  in 
fallible  Bible,  and  the  miraculous  infallible  Church,  disappeared  whe)i 
they  were  closely  looTced  at  ;.and  I  found  the  fact  of  history  quite  dif 
ferent  from  the  pretension  of  theology." 

Here  we  have  the  open  avowal  of  sheer  infidelity.  This  man  of 
superior  talents,  energy,  and  influence,  professing  to  be  a  minister  of 
the  Gospel,  attaches  no  importance  to  the  express  words  of  Christ : 
"  Upon  this  Rock  I  will  build  MY  CHURCH,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  it."  (Matt.  16  :  18.)  He  takes  no  account  of  our 
Lord's  declaration:  "If  he  neglect  to  hear  THE  CHURCH,  let  him  be 
unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man  and  a  publican."  (Matt.  18  :  17.)  And 
the  multiplied  statements  of  the  Apostles,  of  course,  go  for  nothing. 
St.  Paul  might  say  that  "  Christ  is  the  head  of  THE  CHURCH,"  (Eph. 
5  :  23 ;)  that  Christ  "  loved  THE  CHURCH,  and  gave  Himself  for  it," 
(Eph.  5  :  25 ;)  that  THE  CHURCH  is  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 


334  MR.   EMERSON. 

truth,"  (1  Tim.  3  :  15.)  And  St.  Luke  might  declare  that  the  Lord 
added  to  THE  CHURCH  daily,  "  such  as  should  be  saved."  (Acts  2  :  47.) 
All  these,  together  with  a  large  number  of  similar  passages,  were  of  no 
weight  in  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Parker,  because  he  had  satisfied  him 
self  that  the  Bible  was  "  the  work  of  men,"  and  that  "  the  Church 
was  no  more  divine  than  a  Dutchman's  shop,  or  an  Austrian's  farm  !" 
And  this  is  the  teaching  which  thousands  of  deluded  minds  accept, 
as  if  it  were  the  utterance  of  an  infallible  oracle  ! 

The  highly-gifted  Mr.  Emerson  seems  to  have  as  little  confidence 
in  the  Church  as  Mr.  Parker.  "  I  and  my  neighbors,"  saith  he,  "  have 
been  bred  in  the  notion,  that  unless  we  came  soon  to  some  good 
Church — Calvinism,  or  Behmenism,  or  Romanism,  or  Mormonism — 
there  would  be  a  universal  thaw  and  dissolution.  No  Isaiah  or  Jer 
emy  has  arrived.  Nothing  can  exceed  the  anarchy  that  has  followed 
in  our  skies.  The  stern  old  faiths  have  all  pulverized  !  'Tis  a  whole 
population  of  gentlemen  and  ladies  out  in  search  of  a  religion."  * 

This  is  tolerably  strong ;  but  he  exceeds  it  in  the  startling  declara 
tion  that  "  God  builds  His  temple  in  the  heart  on  the  ruins  of 
Churches  and  religions '."t 

And  his  estimate  of  the  masses  is  remarkable  for  its  severity. 
"Shall  we  judge  a  country  by  the  majority,"  saith  he,  "or  by  the 
minority  ?  By  the  minority,  surely.  Leave  this  hypocritical  prating 
about  the  masses.  Masses  are  rude,  lame,  unmade,  pernicious  in 
their  demands  and  influence,  and  need  not  to  be  flattered,  but  to  be 
schooled.  I  wish  not  to  concede  any  thing  to  them,  but  to  tame, 
drill,  divide,  and  break  them  up,  and  draw  individuals  out  of  them. 
The  worst  of  charity  is  that  the  lives  you  are  asked,  to  preserve  are 
not  worth  preserving,  Masses  !  the  calamity  is  the  masses.  I  do  not 
wish  any  mass  at  all,  but  honest  men  only ;  lovely,  sweet,  accom 
plished  women  only ;  and  no  shovel-handed,  narrow-brained,  gin- 
drinking,  million  stockingers  or  lazzaroni  at  all.  If  Government 
knew  how,  I  should  like  to  see  it  check,  not  multiply  the  population."! 

In  this  extraordinary  effusion  of  transcendental  philosophy,  the 
nerves  of  Mr.  Emerson  seem  to  have  gotten  the  mastery  of  his  under 
standing.  The  society  of  the  uncultivated  "masses"  might  not  be 
agreeable  to  his  refined  and  sensitive  habits ;  but  how  would  his  in- 

*  See  Emerson's  Conduct  of  Life,  p.  177,  Boston  ed.  of  1861. 
tlb.  p.  178.  Jib.  p.  218-9. 


MR.   EMERSON.  335 

tellectual  "minority"  of  men,  and  bis  "lovely,  sweet,  accomplished 
women,"  contrive  to  live  in  such  a  world  as  ours,  without  the  "hew 
ers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water,"  the  laborers,  the  artisans,  the 
"  shovel-handed  "  tillers  of  the  soil,  and  the  operatives  of  the  mine 
and  of  the  workshop  ?  Where  would  they  find  the  food  that  sustains, 
or  the  garments  that  clothe,  or  the  dwellings  that  shelter  them? 
What  means  would  they  employ  to  build  the  ships  and  navigate  the 
ocean  ?  Nay,  how  would  they  supply  their  minds  with  their  favorite 
literature,  if  the  "  masses  "  had  not  reduced  the  ores  of  lead  and  iron, 
and  formed  the  printing-press,  and  raised  the  flax,  and  made  the 
paper,  and  tanned  the  leather,  and  bound  the  book,  and  performed 
the  whole  of  the  mechanical  but  indispensable  work,  which  gives  the 
best  means  of  earthly  fame  to  the  successful  author?  And  what 
would  our  mighty  Republic  be  at  this  day,  if  Mr.  Emerson's  policy 
had  been  adopted,  by  "  checking  "  instead  of  encouraging  the  increase 
of  those  "  masses,"  who  are,  in  truth,  the  very  bone,  and  sinew,  and 
muscle  of  our  country  ? 

But  strange  as  such  extravagance  appears  in  the  eyes  of  common- 
sense,  it  seems  much  worse  than  strange  when  we  regard  it  in  con 
trast  with  the  spirit  of  Christianity.  The  Saviour  of  the  world  looked 
down  upon  "  the  masses,"  not  with  philosophical  contempt,  but  with 
loving  compassion,  "  as  sheep  having  no  shepherd."  He  did  not  re 
serve  His  Gospel  for  the  intellectual  "minority"  of  men,  nor  for  the 
"sweet,  accomplished  women,"  but  preached  it  freely  to  the  multi 
tudes.  He  did  not  praise  the  self-righteous  Pharisee  who  thanked 
the  Lord  that  he  was  "not  as  other  men,"  but  rather  justified  the 
despised  publican,  who  "  smote  upon  his  breast,  saying :  God  be 
merciful  to  me,  a  sinner."  He  even  chose  His  own  earthly  lot  among 
"  the  masses,"  aided  His  reputed  father,  Joseph,  in  the  labors  of  a 
carpenter,  and  after  He  entered  on  His  sacred  ministry,  and  had  re 
fused  the  offer  of  a  kingly  throne,  yet  He  still  continued  His  work  of 
mercy  to  the  "  common  people,"  from  whom  He  bad  selected,  as  His 
favored  Apostles,  the  fishermen  of  Galilee.  Is  it  possible  to  conceive 
a  more  striking  contrast  than  the  whole  life  and  doctrine  of  Christ 
present,  to  the  conscious  pride  of  this  transcendental  philosopher  ? 
Is  it  possible  that  we  can  suppose  him  to  be  influenced  by  religious 
truth  when  we  hear  him  exclaiming:  "The  masses!  The  calamity 
is  the  masses.  The  worst  of  charity  is  that  the  lives  you  are  asked 
to  preserve  are  not  worth  ^reserving  ;"  and  then  listen  to  the  divine 


336  MR.   EMERSON. 

Saviour,  saying :  "  To  the  poor  the  Gospel  is  preached.  Blessed  are 
the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?" 

But  I  pass  on  to  some  further  developments  of  this  admired  writer's 
sentiments.  In  an  eloquent  Address  to  the  Senior  Divinity  Class 
connected  with  Harvard  University,  delivered  July  15th,  1838,  this 
passage  occurs: 

"  It  is  my  duty  to  say  to  you  that  the  need  was  never  greater  of 
new  revelation  than  now.  From  the  views  I  have  already  ex 
pressed,  you  will  infer  the  sad  conviction,  which  I  share,  I  believe, 
with  numbers,  of  the  universal  decay  and  now  almost  death  of  faith 
in  society.  The  soul  is  not  preached.  The  Church  seems  to  totter 
to  its  fall,  almost  all  life  extinct"* 

And  he  enlightens  his  readers  by  an  intimation  of  his  system  in 
the  following  propositions,  which  he  seems  to  have  drawn  from  that 
grand  old  heathen  slave,  the  philosopher  Epictetus : 

u  That  is  always  best,"  saith  he,  "  which  gives  me  to  myself.  The 
sublime  is  excited  in  me  by  the  great  stoical  doctrine,  OBEY  THYSELF. 
That  which  shows  God  in  me,  fortifies  me.  That  which  shows  God 
out  of  me,  makes  me  a  wart  and  a  wen.  There  is  no  longer  a  neces- 
s&ry  reason  for  rny  being."t 

Speaking,  in  the  same  volume,  of  the  decay  of  religion,  Mr.  Emer 
son  makes  the  following  statement,  viz. : 

"  Certainly  there  have  been  periods  when,  from  the  inactivity  of 
the  intellect  on  certain  truths,  a  greater  faith  was  possible  in  names 
and  persons.  The  Puritans  in  England  and  America  found,  in  the 
Christ  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  in  the  dogmas  inherited  from 
Rome,  scope  for  their  austere  piety,  and  their  longings  for  civil  free 
dom.  But  their  Creed  is  passing  away,  and  none  arises  in  its  room.. 
It  is  already  beginning  to  indicate  character  and  religion,  to  withdraw 
from  the  religious  meetings.  I  have  heard  a  devout  person,  who 
prized  the  Sabbath,  say,  in  bitterness  of  heart:  '  On  Sundays,  it  seems 
wicked  to  go  to  Church.'  And  the  motive  that  holds  the  best  there, 
is  only  a  hope  and  a  waiting."! 

These  passages,  which  might  be  greatly  multiplied,  prove  suffi 
ciently  the  results  of  Mr.  Emerson's  experience  within  his  special 
sphere  of  observation.  And  these  results  appear  to  my  mind  to  be 

*  Emerson >s  Miscellanies,  p.  181.  +  Ib.  p.  127. 

t  Emerson1 1  Miscellanies,  p.  18S-9. 


MR.   EMERSON.  337 

the  necessary  consequence  of  indulgence  in  the  same  self-will,  which 
began  by  a  wanton  separation  from  the  apostolic  system  of  the  Church 
of  England,  and  went  on,  by  degrees,  to  question  the  divine  authority 
of  the  Bible.  The  commencement  was  Puritanism.  The  next  step 
was  Socinianism.  And  the  end  was  a  departure,  farther  and  farther, 
from  the  Standard  of  religious  truth,  until  the  Word  of  God  was  re 
garded  as  the  word  of  man,  and  all  real  faith  was  set  aside,  in  the 
worship  of  the  individual  reason.  "  Obey  thyself"  saith  this  modern 
philosopher.  "  That  which  shows  God  in  me,  fortifies  me.  That 
which  shows  God  out  of  me,  makes  me  a  wart  and  a  wen."  Here  is 
the  doctrine  which  deifies  the  human  mind,  and  seeks  for  salvation, 
not  in  the  humble  and  grateful  acceptance  of  the  atoning  sacrifice  and 
mediation  of  the  glorious  Redeemer,  offered  to  us  in  mercy  by  the 
free  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  in  the  proud  reliance  on  our  own 
inward  light,  which  scorns  to  submit  itself  to  any  other  teacher,  how 
ever  celestial  and  divine ! 

But  the  ideas  of  this  gifted,  though  sadly  erroneous  writer,  are  yet 
more  developed  in  the  following  passages,  viz : 

"  The  religion  which  is  to  guide  and  fulfil  the  present  and  coming 
ages,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  must  be  intellectual.  The  scientific 
mind  must  have  a  faith  which  is  science.  '  There  are  two  things,' 
said  Mohammed,  l  which  I  abhor,  the  learned  in  his  infidelities,  and  the 
fool  in  his  devotions.'  Our  times  are  impatient  of  both,  and  especially 
of  the  last.  Let  us  have  nothing  now  which  is  not  its  own  evidence. 
There  is  surely  enough  for  the  heart  and  the  imagination  in  the  re 
ligion  itself.  Let  us  not  be  pestered  with  assertions  and  half  truths, 
with  emotions  and  snuffle." 

"  There  will  be  a  new  church  founded  on  moral  science,  at  first  cold 
and  naked,  a  babe  in  a  manger  again,  the  algebra  and  mathematics  of 
ethical  law,  the  church  of  men  to  come,  without  shawms,  or  psaltery, 
or  sackbut ;  but  it  will  have  heaven  and  earth  for  its  beams  and  raf 
ters  ;  science  for  symbol  and  illustration ;  it  will  fast  enough  gather 
beauty,  music,  picture,  poetry.  Was  never  stoicism  so  stern  and  ex 
igent  as  this  shall  be.  It  shall  send  man  home  to  his  central  solitude, 
shame  these  social,  supplicating  manners,  and  make  him  know  that 
much  of  the  time  he  must  have  himself  to  his  friend.  He  shall  ex 
pect  no  cooperation,  he  shall  walk  with  no  companion.  The  nameless 
Thought,  the  nameless  Power,  the  superpersonal  Heart, — he  shall 
repose  alone  on  that.  He  needs  only  his  own  verdict.  No  good  fame 
15 


338  ME.   EMERSON. 

can  help,  no  bad  fame  can  hurt  him.  The  Laws  are  his  consolers,  the 
good  Laws  themselves  are  alive,  they  know  if  he  have  kept  them, 
they  animate  him  with  the  leading  of  great  duty,  and  an  endless  hori 
zon.  Honor  and  fortune  exist  to  him  who  always  recognizes  the 
neighborhood  of  the  great,  always  feels  himself  in  the  presence  of 
high  causes."* 

Here,  then,  we  have  Mr.  Emerson's  ideal  of  what  religion  should 
be.  He  had  told  us  before  that  the  old  faiths  "  have  all  pulverized" — 
that  "  God  builds  his  temple  in  the  heart  on  the  ruins  of  churches 
and  religions" — that  "  the  need  was  never  greater  of  new  revelation 
than  now."  And  he  predicts,  accordingly,  a  new  church,  not  founded 
on  the  Bible,  nor  on  tradition,  nor  on  the  authority  of  miracles  and 
prophecy,  nor  on  the  recorded  Word  and  work  of  Christ ;  but  on 
what  he  calls  MORAL  SCIENCE.  The  evidence  of  the  old  truth  is  of  no 
further  value.  We  must  have  "nothing  now  which  is  not  its  own 
evidence  /" 

The  sympathy  of  Mr.  Emerson  with  Mr.  Parker  is  exhibited  very 
plainly  in  a  letter,  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  a  book  which  the  lat 
ter  had  dedicated  to  him.  This  letter  is  worth  transcribing,  as  a  fair 
exponent  of  the  growing  power  of  ultra-abolitionism,  in  connection 
with  infidelity,  viz. : 

"  CONCORD,  MASS.,  March  19,  1853. 

"  MY  DEAR  PARKER  :  Before  that  book  came  to  me,  though  not  un 
til  several  weeks  after  it  was  sent,  I  read  the  inscription,  if  with  more 
pride  than  was  becoming,  yet  not  without  some  terror.  Lately  I  took 
the  book  in  hand,  and  read  the  largest  part  of  it  with  good  heed.  I 
find  in  it  all  the  traits  which  are  making  your  discourses  material  to 
the  history  of  Massachusetts  ;  the  realism,  the  power  of  local  and 
homely  illustration,  the  courage  and  vigor  of  treatment,  and  the  mas 
terly  sarcasm — now  naked,  now  veiled — and  I  think  with  a  marked 
growth  in  power  and  coacervation — shall  I  say  ? — of  statement.  To 
be  sure,  I  am  in  this  moment  thinking  also  of  speeches  out  of  this 
book,  as  well  as  those  in  it.  Well,  you  will  give  the  times  to  come 
the  means  of  knowing  how  the  lamp  was  fed,  which  they  are  to  thank 
you  that  they  find  burning.  And  though  I  see  you  are  too  good- 
natured  by  half  in  your  praise  of  your  contemporaries,  you  will 
neither  deceive  us  nor  posterity,  nor — forgive  me — yourself  any  more, 

*  Conduct  of  Life,  p.  210. 


THEODOEE  PARKER.  339 

in  this  graceful  air  of  laying  on  others  your  own  untransferable  lau 
rels." 

"  We  shall  all  thank  the  right  soldier  whom  God  gave  strength  and 
will  to  fight  for  Him  the  battle  of  the  day." 

"  Ever  new  strength  and  victory  be  to  you !" 

"R.  W.  EMERSON." 

I  shall  now  return  to  Mr.  Parker,  whose  course  is  made  perfectly 
plain  in  his  own  letters,  so  copiously  published  by  his  admiring  bio 
grapher.     Thus  he  writes  to  the  Hon.  S.  P.  Chase,  in  1854.     (Tol  ii 
p.  226.) 

"I  have  studied  this  matter  of  the  Divine  origin  of  the  Bible  and 
the  Divine  Nature  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  all  my  life.  If  I  understand 
any  thing,  it  is  that.  I  say  there  is  no  evidence— external  or  internal 
—to  show  that  the  Bible  or  Jesus  had  any  thing  miraculous  in  their 
origin  or  nature,  or  any  thing  divine  in  the  sense  that  icord  is  com- 
monly  used.  The  common  notion  on  this  matter  I  regard  as  an  error 
—one,  too,  most  fatal  to  the  development  of  mankind.  Now  in  all 
my  labors  I  look  to  the  general  development  of  mankind,  as  well  as 
to  the  removal  of  every  such  special  sin  as  American  slavery,  as  war, 
drunkenness,  etc.,  therefore  I  introduce  my  general  principle  along 
with  my  special  measures.  I  become  personally  unpopular,  hated 
even ;  but  the  special  measures  go  forward  obviously ;  the  general 
principle  enters  into  the  public  ear,  the  public  mind,  and  what  is  true 
)f  it  will  go  into  the  heart  of  mankind  and  do  its  work.  I  think  I 
work  prudently— I  know  I  do  not  rashly,  and  without  consideration." 
"  Here  let  me  say  that  the  thing  I  value  most  in  a  man  is  fidelity 
to  Jiis  own  nature,  to  his  mind  and  conscience,  heart  and  soul." 

No  language  can  be  more  clear,  in  proving  that  this  professed  min 
ister  of  the  Gospel  had  utterly  abandoned  the  old  faith  of  Christian 
ity.  And  we  shall  see  the  political  and  philanthropic  working  of  his 
religion,  in  the  following  extracts : 

Thus,  in  a  letter  to  the  Hon.  Horace  Mann,  June  27,  1856,  (vol.  ii. 
p.  188,)  Mr.  Parker  saith:  "What  a  state  of  things  we  have  in  poli- 
The  beginning  of  the  end  !  I  take  it  we  can  elect  Fremont;  if 
so,  the  battle  is  fought  and  the  worst  part  of  the  contest  is  over,  'if 
Buchanan  is  elected,  I  don't  believe  the  Union  holds  out  three  years. 
I  shall  go  for  dissolution." 

*  See  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Theodore  Parker.    Vol.  ii.  p.  45. 


340  THEODORE   PARKER. 

In  another  letter,  addressed  to  Professor  Desor,  during  the  same 
year,  he  saith :  "If  Fremont  is  not  elected,  then  I  look  forward  to 
what  is  worse  than  civil  war  in  the  other  form,  viz.,  a  long  series  of 
usurpations  on  the  part  of  the  slave-power,  and  of  concessions  by  the 
North,  until  we  are  forced  to  take  the  initiative  of  revolution  at  the 
North.  That  will  be  the  worst  form  of  the  case,  for  then  the  worst 
fighting  will  be  among  the  Northern  men — between  the  friends  of  free 
dom  and  the  Hunkers.  /  expect  civil  war,  and  make  my  calculations 
accordingly ."  (Ib.  189.) 

And  again,  in  a  letter  to  Hon.  J.  P.  Hale,  dated  Oct.  21,  1856,  we 
have  this  declaration,  viz. : 

"  If  Buchanan  is  President,  I  think  the  Union  does  not  hold  out 
his  four  years.  It  must  end  in  civil  war,  which  I  have  ~been  prepar 
ing  for  these  six  months  past.  I  buy  no  books,  except  for  pressing 
need.  Last  year  I  bought  fifteen  hundred  dollars'  worth.  This 
year  I  shall  not  order  two  hundred  dollars'  worth.  I  may  want  the 
money  for  cannons.  Have  you  any  plan  in  case  we  are  defeated  ? 
Of  course  the  principles  and  measures  of  the  administration  will  re 
main  unchanged,  and  the  mode  of  execution  will  be  the  more  intense 
and  rapid." 

The  views  of  Mr.  Parker  are  yet  more  clearly  set  forth  in  the  fol 
lowing  extract  from  his  Journal,  (2  vol.  p.  190,)  written  on  the  day 
when  President  Buchanan  was  elected  : 

"  This  day  is  not  less  critical  in  our  history  for  the  future  than 
4th  July,  "76,  was  for  the  past.     At  sunrise  there  were  three  alter 
natives  :" 
"  1.  Freedom  may  put  down  slavery  peacefully  by  due  course  of 

law." 

"2.  Slavery  may  put  down  freedom  in  the  same  way." 
"  3.  The  friends  of  freedom  ancl  its  foes  may  draw  swords  and  fight." 

"  At  sunset  the  people  had  repudiated  the  first  alternative.  Now 
America  may  choose  between  Nos.  2  and  3.  Of  course  we  shall 
fight.  I  have  expected  civil  war  for  months  ;  now  I  buy  no  more 
books  for  the  present.  Nay,  I  think  affairs  may  come  to  such  a  pass, 
that  my  own  property  may  be  confiscated ;  for  who  knows  that  we 
shall  beat  at  the  beginning — and  I  hung  as  a  traitor  !  So  I  invest 
property  accordingly.  Wife's  will  be  safe.  I  don't  pay  the  mortgage 
till  1862." 


THEODORE   PARKEK.  341 

And  once  more,  I  quote  from  Mr.  Parker's  letter  to  Miss  Hunt,  in 
Europe,  Nov.  IT,  1856,  (vol.  2,  p.  191,)  viz. : 

"  At  New-York  and  elsewhere,  Banks  said  the  election  of  Fremont 
would  settle  the  slavery  question,  and  stop  agitation  for  thirty  years  ! 
I  opened  my  eyes  when  I  went  out  West,  and  saw  that  the  hands 
of  the  Republicans  are  not  yet  quite  clean  enough  to  be  trusted  with 
power.  There  has  a  deal  of  bad  stuff  come  over  to  the  Republican 
party.  I  am  more  than  ever  of  opinion  that  we  must  settle  this 
question  in  the  old  Anglo-Saxon  way — with  the  sword" 

"  There  are  two  Constitutions  for  America — one  writ  on  parchment 
and  laid  up  at  Washington  ;  the  other  also  on  parchment,  but  on 
the  head  of  a  drum.  It  is  to  this  we  must  appeal,  and  before  long. 
I  make  all  my  pecuniary  arrangements — with  the  expectation  of  civil 
war." 

I  must  confess  that  I  read  these  declarations  of  Mr.  Parker  with 
astonishment,  and  should  not  believe  them  on  any  evidence  less 
satisfactory  than  that  of  his  admiring  biographer.  How  a  professed 
minister  of  Christ,  however  he  had  wandered  from  the  true  faith  of 
the  Gospel,  could  continue  to  proclaim,  Sunday  after  Sunday,  even 
the  moral  doctrines  of  religion,  and  yet  hail  with  satisfaction  the 
bloody  horrors  of  civil  war — how  a  zealous  philanthropist,  in  his 
fervent  devotion  to  the  abolition  of  negro  slavery,  could  resolve  that 
it  must  be  accomplished  by  the  sword  of  slaughter — how  a  native 
American,  bound  by  his  allegiance  to  support  the  Constitution,  could 
coolly  determine,  almost  five  years  before  the  crisis  arrived,  that  the 
Union  should  be  destroyed  by  an  appeal  to  the  other  constitution 
written  on  the  head  of  a  drum,  and  make  all  his  pecuniary  arrange 
ments  with  a  view  to  the  possibility  that  he  might  himself  be  hung 
as  a  traitor — all  this  seemed  to  me  so  little  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  and  feelings  of  common  humanity,  that  I  could  only  regard 
it  as  a  kind  of  monomania — a  terrible  delusion,  proceeding  from  the 
Prince  of  Darkness,  and  in  direct  hostility  to  the  precepts  of  that 
Divine  Redeemer  who  is  the  Prince  of  Peace. 

But  Mr.  Parker  was  consistent  with  all  this  in  his  theory  of  na 
tural  ethics,  where  he  justifies  the  maxims  of  supposed  right  which 
led  to  the  horrid  butchery  of  St.  Domingo.  For  thus  he  writes  in  a 
letter  to  Francis  Jackson,  dated  at  Rome,  in  1859,  (vol.  ii.  p.  170): 

"  In  my  best  estate,"  saith  he,  "  I  do  not  pretend  to  much  political 
wisdom,  and  still  less  now  while  sick  ;  but  I  wish  yet  to  set  down  a 


842  THEODORE   PARKER. 

few  thoughts  for  your  private  eye,  and  it  may  be,  for  the  ear  of  the 
fraternity.  They  are,  at  least,  the  result  of  long  meditation  on  the 
subject ;  besides,  they  are  not  at  all  new  nor  peculiar  to  me,  but  are 
a  part  of  t\\Q  public  knowledge  of  all  enlightened  men" 

"  1.  A  man  held  against  his  will  as  a  slave,  has  a  natural  right  to 
Mil  every  one  who  seeks  to  prevent  his  enjoyment  of  liberty.  This 
has  long  been  recognized  as  a  self-evident  proposition,  coming  so 
directly  from  the  primitive  instincts  of  human  nature,  that  it  neither 
required  proofs,  nor  admitted  them." 

"2.  It  may  be  a  natural  duty  of  the  slave  to  develop  this  natu 
ral  right  in  a  practical  manner,  and  actually  kill  all  those  who  seek 
to  prevent  his  enjoyment  of  liberty.  For  if  he  continues  patiently  in 
bondage — First,  he  entails  the  foulest  of  curses  on  his  children  ;  and, 
secondly,  he  encourages  other  men  to  commit  the  crime  against  na 
ture  which  he  allows  his  own  master  to  commit,"  etc. 

"  3.  The  freeman  has  a  natural  right  to  help  the  slaves  to  recover 
their  liberty,  and  in  that  enterprise  to  do  for  them  all  which  they 
have  a  right  to  do  for  themselves.  This  statement,  I  think,  requires 
no  argument  or  illustration." 

"4.  It  may  be  a  natural  duty  for  the  freeman  to  help  the  slaves 
to  the  enjoyment  of  their  liberty,  and  as  means  to  that  end,  to  aid 
them  in  killing  all  such  as  oppose  their  natural  freedom." 

"  5.  The  performance  of  this  duty  is  to  be  controlled  by  the  free 
man's  power  and  opportunity  to  help  the  slaves.  The  impossible  is 
never  the  obligatory. — If  I  could  help  the  bondmen  in  Virginia  to 
their  freedom  as  easily  and  effectually  as  I  can  aid  the  runaway  at 
my  own  door,  then  I  ought  to  do  so." 

"  These  five  maxims  have  a  direct  application  to  America  at  this 
day,  and  the  people  of  the  free  States  have  a  certain  dim  perception 
thereof,  which,  fortunately,  is  becoming  clearer  every  year." 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  full  display  of  the  new  revelation — the  gos 
pel  of  ultra-abolitionism  which  anticipated  our  mournful  war  as  the 
true  means  to  emancipate  the  negro,  and  seeks  to  accomplish  this 
favorite  object  through  a  deluge  of  blood,  and  at  any  sacrifice  of  life 
and  treasure.  The  Union  is  nothing,  for  Mr.  Parker  is  for  "  dissolu 
tion."  The  Bible  is  nothing,  for  it  is  "  the  work  of  men."  The 
Church  is  nothing,  for  it  has  no  more  sanctity  about  it  than  "  a 
Dutchman's  shop  or  an  Austrian's  farm."  The  Constitution  is  only 
"a  piece  of  parchment  laid  up  in  Washington,"  and  the  real  consti- 


THEODORE  PARKER.  343 

tution  is  written  on  the  "parchment  on  the  head,  of  a  drum  /"  The 
power  of  established  law,  the  safety  and  contentment  of  the  negro 
race,  the  advancement  of  our  national  prosperity  in  the  path  marked 
out  by  the  revolutionary  patriots,  the  oath  of  office,  the  feelings  of 
civilized  humanity,  the  connections  and  relationships  of  families 
spread  abroad,  North  and  South,  throughout  the  land— all  these  are 
nothing  in  the  scale  of  social  consideration.  The  one  thing  needful 
is  the  destruction  of  slavery,  no  matter  at  what  cost  of  fearful  con 
sequences.  The  negroes  must  be  roused  to  Ull  their  masters. 
The  freemen  must  be  roused  to  help  them,  as  in  the  case  of  John 
Brown,  who  honestly  acted  on  this  theory.  And  the  millennium  of 
the  new  Church  must  be  inaugurated  in  the  victory  of  infidelity,  the 
ruin  of  all  the  old  faith,  the  contempt  of  every  civil  obligation,  the 
groans  and  tears  of  suffering  millions,  and  the  threatened  reign  of 
bloody  anarchy;  ending,  too  probably,  in  the* worst  form  of  military 
despotism,  over  a  once  happy,  prosperous,  and  peaceful  people  1 


344  THE  PKOTEST. 


CHAPTER    XLVIII. 

RIGHT  REVEKEND  BKOTHER  :  With  the  exhibition  of  the  infidel  prin 
ciples,  the  sanguinary  plan  of  abolitionism,  and  the  frank  desire  to 
disunite  the  States,  which  were  so  plainly  professed  by  Mr.  Theodore 
Parker,  (a  great  leader  in  this  dangerous  school,)  I  shall  close  my 
extracts,  saving  only  the  matters  which  the  reader  will  find  in  the 
Appendix.  And  I  think  it  will  be  admitted  that  I  have  amply  re 
deemed  my  promise  in  the  answer  to  your  Protest.  The  doctrines 
laid  down  in  the  Bible  Vieio  of  Slavery  have  been  sustained  by 
abundant  testimony,  and  nothing  more  remains  but  to  bring  my 
work  to  its  conclusion. 

To  this  end,  I  would  recall  to  your  memory  the  precept  delivered 
by  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus :  "  Rebuke  not  an 
elder,  l)ut  intreat  him  as  a  father"  (1  Tim.  5  :  1.) 

I  am  your  elder,  in  years,  and  especially  in  office.  You  have  not 
merely  rebuked,  but  much  more,  denounced  me,  without  warning, 
examination,  or  the  slightest  effort  to  practice  the  ordinary  rules  of 
justice,  and  far  less  of  Christian  courtesy.  And  your  denunciation 
accuses  me  of  a  grave  offense  against  the  laws,  amounting  to  mis- 
prision  of  treason,  although,  for  this  preposterous  charge,  you  had 
not  a  shadow  of  proof,  or  even  of  probable  presumption.  This  false 
and  insulting  accusation,  moreover,  you  induced  your  clergy  to  in 
dorse,  and  proclaimed  it  in  handbills,  far  and  wide,  to  be  used  in 
your  political  election.  And  all  for  what  ?  Simply  because,  at  the 
request  of  some  of  your  own  gentlemen  in  Philadelphia,  nearly  five 
months  before,  I  sent  them  a  pamphlet  containing  my  opinions  on 
the  lawfulness  of  slavery,  which  I  had  published  substantially  several 
times  within  the  last  thirteen  years.  And  this  pamphlet  I  gave  them 
my  consent  to  have  reprinted  at  their  expense,  and  made  no  objec 
tion,  two  months  afterwards,  to  have  it  circulated  by  the  Democratic 
party.  And  this  is  the  whole  of  my  course,  which  you  denounce  in 
your  protest  as  "  unworthy  of  any  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  chal 
lenging  your  "indignant  reprobation." 


THE  ADMONITION.  345 

The  spirit  and  the  action  which  become  me,  under  this  extraordi 
nary  provocation,  are  marked  out  by  another  precept  of  the  Apostle : 
"  We  command  you,  brethren,"  saith  he,  "  in  the  name  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every  brother  that 
walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which  he  received  of 
us,  and  have  no  company  with  him.  Yet  count  him  not  as  an  enemy, 
but  admonish  him  as  a  brother."  (2  Thes.  3  :  6,  14-5.) 

I  might,  with  perfect  propriety,  according  to  the  rules  of  worldly 
justice,  prosecute  you  and  your  clergy,  for  a  gross  and  scandalous 
libel.  I  might  also  take  measures  to  have  you  presented  before  a 
court  of  Bishops  for  your  transgression  ;  which  I  consider  to  be  of  a 
far  more  dangerous  character  to  the  law  and  order  of  the  Church, 
than  any  of  the  charges  brought  in  former  years  before  that  tribunal. 
But  I  have  no  desire  to  trouble  our  brethren  or  myself  with  any  hos 
tile  proceeding.  As  a  lover  of  peace,  I  take  the  mildest  possible 
view  of  your  conduct,  by  calling  it  "disorderly,"  and  not  "after  the 
tradition  "  or  rule  of  the  Apostle.  And  therefore,  in  obedience  to 
his  command,  I  withdraw  myself  from  your  company,  not  counting 
you  as  an  enemy,  but  admonishing  you  as  a  brother. 

For  you  are  still  my  brother  in  Christ,  notwithstanding  you  are  so 
thoroughly  alienated  by  your  course  of  public  and  libelous  denuncia 
tion,  that  I  can  not  look  forward  to  any  future  association  with  you 
on  earth,  however  I  may  hope  to  meet  you  in  His  heavenly  kingdom. 
But  this  is  of  small  importance.  The  time  of  my  sojourn  in  this 
troublesome  world  is  not  likely  to  be  very  long ;  and,  since  it  must 
be  so,  I  can  finish  my  humble  course  in  the  Church  below,  without 
any  renewal  of  my  former  fraternal  intercourse  with  the  Diocesan  of 
Pennsylvania. 

With  this  brief  statement  of  the  matter,  I  proceed,  in  obedience  to 
the  precept  of  St.  Paul,  to  complete  my  unwelcome  duty,  trusting 
that  it  may  be  useful  to  others,  if  not  to  you. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  I  admonish  you  to  remember  your  ORDINATION 
vows,  which  are  registered  in  heaven.  When  you  were  ordained  a 
priest,  you  were  asked :  "  Will  you  give  your  faithful  diligence  al 
ways  so  to  minister  the  doctrine  and  sacraments  and  the  discipline 
of  Christ,  as  the  Lord  hath  commanded  and  as  this  Church  hath 
received  the  same  ?"  And  you  answered  :  "  I  will  so  do  by  the  help 
of  God." 

Again  you  were  asked :  "  Will  you  be  ready,  with  all  faithful  dili- 


346  THE  ADMONITION. 

gence,  to  banish  and  drive  away  from  the  Church  all  erroneous  and 
strange  doctrines  contrary  to  God's  Word  ?"  And  you  answered  : 
"  I  will,  the  Lord  being  my  helper."  The  same  question  and  answer 
were  repeated,  Avhen  you  were  consecrated  a  bishop. 

Now  I  maintain  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  tolerate  the  dogmas 
of  ultra-abolitionism,  or  to  bring  them  into  the  sanctuary  of  God,  or 
to  recommend  them  to  His  people,  without  a  direct  infraction  of  these 
vows  of  ordination.  For  the  Church  never  held  that  it  was  a  sin 
to  buy,  or  sell,  or  hold  a  slave  ;  much  less  that  it  was  the  worst  of  all 
sins,  and  "  the  sum  of  all  villainies."  On  the  contrary,  she  has  ever 
repudiated  it  as  false  doctrine.  She  has  even  placed  slaveholders,  as 
bishops,  in  her  highest  seats  of  honor ;  and  up  to  the  commencement  of 
this  mournful  conflict,  you  professed  as  much  esteem  for  the  piety 
and  Christian  consistency  of  those  bishops,  as  any  man. 

But  I  would  further  observe,  that  between  these  two  doctrines 
there  can  be  no  middle  ground  of  compromise.  Slaveholding  is  either 
a  sin,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  a  sin,  the  Northern  Methodists  were  right 
in  excommunicating  their  Southern  brethren ;  for  it  is  manifestly  for 
bidden  to  administer  the  sacrament  to  any  one  who  is  living  openly 
in  sin,  and  refuses  to  forsake  it.  If  it  is  not  a  sin,  these  Northern 
Methodists  were  wrong,  and  stand  chargeable  themselves  with  the 
sin  of  schism,  by  casting  off  their  brethren  without  any  justification. 

And  here,  in  truth,  was  the  fatal  act  which  lighted  up  the  torch  of 
religious  discord  amongst  the  Christian  societies  of  the  land,  and  thus 
furnished  material  to  the  politicians,  who  brought  about,  in  due  time, 
the  civil  war  now  raging  through  our  unhappy  country.  The  ultra- 
abolitionists,  who  had  previously  been  regarded  as  a  small  body  of 
absurd  and  deluded  enthusiasts,  suddenly  rose  to  dignity  and  im 
portance,  under  the  powerful  wing  of  Northern  Methodism.  The 
pulpits  of  the  various  denominations  began  to  ring  with  the  sin  of 
slaveholding,  the  wrongs  of  the  poor  Africans,  and  the  barbarities  of 
the  tyrants  who  held  them  in  bondage.  The  excitement  spread  from 
sect  to  sect,  with  a  few  individual  exceptions,  until  at  length  our 
Church  was  the  only  ark  of  refuge  among  Protestants  for  the  old 
faith  of  the  Bible,  where  the  Word  of  Christ  and  the  doctrine  of  His 
inspired  Apostles  could  be  heard,  unpolluted  by  the  eloquent  ravings 
of  a  very  sincere  but  utterly  mistaken  philanthropy.  The  novel- 
writers,  the  magazines,  and  the  editors,  all  echoed  the  new  cry  of 
the  equal  rights  of  man,  and  the  infidel  reformer,  the  ambitious 


THE   ADMONITION.  347 

statesman,  and  the  intriguing  demagogue  worked  in  loving  unity  with 
the  fervent  and  earnest  preachers,  who  had  unhappily  been  persuaded 
to  change  the  Gospel  of  peace  into  the  trumpet-blast  of  war  and  con 
fusion. 

But  has  this  mournful  work  of  philanthropy,  run  mad,  discharged 
you  from  your  vows  of  ordination  ?  Not  so,  my  Right  Reverend 
Brother  ;  for  you  are  still  bound  as  much  as  ever  to  maintain  "  the 
doctrine  and  discipline  of  Christ  as  the  Lord  hath  commanded  and 
as  this  Church  hath  received  the  same."  I  can  not  conceive  that  the 
false  light  which  has  deluded,  the  Christian  sects  should  have  any 
influence  on  you ;  and  therefore  it  is  that  I  admonish  you  to  remem 
ber  your  solemn  obligation. 

2.  In  the  next  place,  I  admonish  you  to  ponder  seriously  the  divine 
authority  of  the  HOLY  SCKIPTUKES  on  this  subject.     I  contend  that 
every  Christian  man  must  adhere  to  the  language  of  the  Bible,  in 
speaking  of  slaver}''.     He  may  desire  and  promote  its  peaceable  abo 
lition,  on  the  score  of  expediency,  if  he  will ;  but  he  can  never  justify 
its  abolition  by  force,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  a  sin  to  hold  a  slave, 
without  a  direct  conflict  with  the  plain  teaching  of  both  the  Old  and 
the  New  Testament.     Such  a  course  would  be  at  war  with  the  faith 
even  of  a  private  Christian.     How  much  more  must  it  be  inconsistent 
with  your  office,  as  a  bishop  over  the  flock  of  the  Redeemer! 

3.  In  the  third  place,  I  admonish  you  to  remember  the  reverence 
which  you  owe  to  the  VOICE  OF  THE  CHURCH.     You  repeat  the  ancient 
creed  every  Sunday,  in  which  you  profess  your  leliefin  the  holy 
catholic  Church,  meaning  thereby  the  universal  Church  of  Christ, 
in  the  first  pure  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  before  it  was  divided ; 
and  taking  for  your  guide  the  rule  of  St  Vincent,  Quod  semper,  quod 
ubique,  quod  db  omnibus — what  was  believed  "always,  everywhere, 
and  by  all" — as  the  only  sure  standard  of  Scriptural  interpretation. 
I  have  proved,  by  many  indisputable  witnesses,  that  this  rule  recog 
nized  the  lawfulness  of  slavery,  as  it  existed  in  the  old  Roman  empire. 
And  I  have  also  proved  that,  up  to  the  period  of  the  English  Act  of 
Emancipation,  there  was  no  variance  on  the  subject  in  any  part  of 
the  Christian  world.     Hence,  if  there  could  be  a  doubt  concerning 
the  meaning  of  the  Bible,  the  voice  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  must 
be  decisive  on  the  question.     And  against  that  authority  no  Bishop 
is  at  liberty  to  rebel. 

4.  In  the  fourth  place,  I  admonish  you  to  remember  your  ALLE- 


348  THE  ADMONITION. 

GIANCE    TO    THE    CONSTITUTION    OF    THE     UNITED     STATES,    which    every 

naturalized  foreigner  is  sworn  to  support,  as  well  as  every  officer  in 
the  Government.  The  same  allegiance,  as  you  must  be  aware,  de 
volves  on  every  native  citizen  by  virtue  of  his  birth ;  and  therefore 
you  are  bound  as  fully  as  if  you  had  taken  the  oath,  and  to  an  equal 
extent,  precisely.  This,  however,  is  not  only  a  civil,  but  also  a  reli 
gious  obligation ;  because  the  Constitution  is  the  "  supreme  law  of 
the  land,"  and  the  Saviour  commands  us  to  "  render  unto  Caesar  the 
things  that  be  Caesar's,"  and  the  Apostle  lays  down  the  precept : 
"Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher  powers."  By  the  terms 
of  this  Constitution,  slavery  is  made  lawful.  And  therefore  I  do  not 
see  how  you  can  deny  its  lawfulness,  without  opposing  the  "  supreme 
law  of  the  land,"  which  you  are  solemnly  bound  to  support ;  and 
thus  becoming  the  patron  of  treason  in  sentiment,  if  not  in  action. 

5.  In  the  fifth  and  last  place,  I  admonish  you  not  to  rush  again, 
through  your  zeal  for  political  expediency,  into  a  libelous  assault  on 
a  brother  bishop  ;  nor  to  bring  your  clergy  into  a  false  position,  with 
out  at  least  some  decent  regard  to  the  usual  course  of  previous  in 
quiry  and  consultation.  The  mode  in  which  you  did  this  thing  would 
be  a  disgrace  to  the  lowest  court  of  justice,  in  deciding  upon  the  act 
of  the  most  worthless  individual.  Even  the  self-appointed  tribunal 
which  is  called  "Lynch  law"  gives  an  opportunity  to  the  culprit  to 
make  his  defense  before  a  jury,  and  imitates,  to  some  extent,  the  order 
established  in  every  civilized  community.  But  your  clergy  were  not 
summoned  to  meet  together.  Your  intended  victim  was  not  notified. 
The  false  and  defamatory  sentence  was  drawn  up  by  your  own  hand, 
and  a  committee  of  three  were  deputed  to  obtain  the  subscribers  ;  the 
object  being  to  accomplish  the  work  in  the  least  possible  time,  in 
order  that  the  placards  containing  your  Protest  might  be  posted  at 
the  corners  of  the  streets  before  the  day  of  election ! 

And  yet  your  proceeding  was  nothing  short  of  a  public  judgment, 
pronounced  on  a  brother  bishop,  your  senior  in  years  and  in  office, 
who  had  labored  at  least  as  hard  in  the  service  of  the  Church,  who 
had  published  more  books  in  defense  of  her  principles  than  all  your 
diocese  together,  and  who  had  some  little  character  to  lose,  and  some 
few  friends  to  be  disgusted  and  amazed  by  the  total  want  of  justice 
and  propriety,  of  feeling  and  courtesy,  which  marked  the  whole 
extraordinary  transaction. 

As  the  party  whom  you  have  thus  publicly  defamed,  I  have  justified 


SUMMARY.  349 

my  pamphlet  by  an  appeal  to  the  highest  authority ;  and  I  challenge 
yourself  and  your  phalanx  of  "  indignant  reprobationists  "  to  prove 
that  I  am  in  error,  by  any  argument  worthy  of  a  consistent  Christian 
or  a  loyal  citizen.  The  position  which  I  occupy  is  impregnable,  for 
it  is  defended  by  the  Word  of  God,  the  voice  of  the  Church,  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  country.  Your  zealous  adherents  may  continue 
to  assail  it,  as  some  of  them  have  already  done,  by  invective,  by 
abuse,  and  by  misrepresentation.  But  like  the  waves  which  dash 
against  the  rock,  such  assaults  will  make  no  impression  ;  and  even 
though  their  violence  may  be  favored  for  a  while  by  the  strong  wind 
of  popular  excitement,  it  will  end  in  nothing  more  substantial  than 
froth  and  foam. 

I  conclude  with  a  brief  summary  of  the  whole.  To  slavery  under 
the  domination  of  any  human  master,  I  am  as  much  opposed  as  you 
or  your  clergy,  by  birth,  education,  and  the  habits  of  a  long  lifetime. 
I  desire  to  see  the  Southern  institution  abolished  as  soon  as  it  can 
be,  peaceably,  lawfull}7",  and  with  a  just  regard  to  the  best  interests 
of  all  concerned.  I  have  put  forth  my  argument  many  years  ago,  in 
favor  of  such  abolition,  on  the  principles  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  of 
Rufus  King,  of  President  Harrison,  and  others  ;  being  the  constant 
advocate  of  a  gradual  emancipation  connected  with  the  planting  of 
the  freedmen  in  Africa,  after  the  model  of  Liberia.  Hence,  I  contend 
that  I  have  never  been  in  favor  of  the  perpetual  bondage  of  the  negro 
race,  and  never  have  opposed  their  peaceable  and  gradual  enfranchise 
ment,  and  their  future  elevation  to  the  highest  development  which 
they  may  be  able  to  attain.  To  charge  me  with  such  sentiments  is  a 
sheer  calumny,  in  the  face  of  those  publications  which  were  issued 
and  repeated  years  before  the  commencement  of  our  present  national 
warfare. 

But  along  with  this  I  have  maintained,  and  shall  always  maintain 
that  the  relation  of  the  master  to  the  slave  in  the  Southern  States 
involves  no  sin,  provided  the  treatment  of  the  slave  be  in  accordance 
with  the  Scriptures  ;  because  the  slavery  of  the  heathen  races  was 
sanctioned  by  the  divine  law  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  system 
of  Roman  slavery  was  allowed  to  Christians  by  the  apostles  in  the 
New  Testament ;  and  it  was  regarded  as  a  providential  arrangement 
of  society  by  the  fathers,  the  councils,  the  theologians,  and  commen 
tators  in  every  branch  of  the  Church  for  more  than  eighteen  centuries ; 
so  that  there  is  no  question  on  which  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  was 


350  SUMMARY. 

more  perfectly  unanimous — that  by  necessary  consequence  the  mo 
dern  doctrine  of  ultra-abolitionists  is  an  impious  error,  because  it 
opposes  the  Bible  and  the  Church — that  it  is  a  dangerous  error,  be 
cause  it  divides  Christian  communities  into  hostile  sects,  bitterly  war 
ring  against  each  other — that  it  is  rebellious  to  the  State  as  well  as  to 
the  Church,  because  it  tramples  on  the  Constitution,  calling  it  a 
"covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement  with  hell,"  and  has  driven 
the  old  Union  of  the  States  into  discord  and  strife,  of  which  no  man 
can  foretell  the  issue — that  to  the  negro  race,  slavery  in  the  hands  of 
their  Southern  masters  has  been  a  blessing  ;  because  it  has  been  the 
means  appointed  in  wisdom  by  divine  Providence  to  redeem  them  from 
a  far  more  bitter  bondage  in  Africa,  in  the  midst  of  savage  barbarism 
and  heathen  degradation,  to  train  them  up  to  the  civilization  of  the 
Gospel,  to  qualify  a  portion  of  them  to  plant  the  State  of  Liberia,  and 
to  enrol  five  hundred  thousand  communicants  amongst  the  professed 
Christians  of  the  South — that  if  there  had  been  no  such  arrangement 
opened  to  them  through  the  Southern  institution,  all  these,  with  other 
millions  of  their  ancestors,  must  have  lived  and  died  in  African  bond 
age  and  in  the  darkest  paganism— that  the  same  Providence  which  has 
thus  far  produced  so  vast  a  benefit  to  a  portion  of  the  negro  race,  will 
doubtless  incline  the  masters  to  their  ultimate  emancipation  on  a 
much  larger  scale,  when  the  Almighty  sees  that  the  proper  time  has 
come,  if  His  designs  are  not  rashly  opposed  by  human  presumption — 
that,  meanwhile,  the  Church  has  no  right  to  interfere  with  the  in 
stitution,  warranted  as  it  is  not  only  by  the  u  supreme  law  of  the 
land,"  laid  down  in  the  Constitution,  but  by  the  word  of  God  and  the 
unanimous  judgment  of  Christendom — that  we  have  no  reason  to 
question  the  assurances  of  the  Southern  clergy,  concerning  the  justice 
and  kindliness  of  the  treatment  which  the  slaves  receive,  as  the  gen- 
eral  rule,  notwithstanding  occasional  exceptions,  nor  to  doubt  that 
the  Christians  of  the  South  are  quite  as  sensible  of  their  responsibility, 
and  as  indulgent  and  humane  as  we  are — that  the  ultimate  result  will 
be  the  preparation,  in  due  time,  of  a  vast  host  of  missionary  laborers, 
able,  by  their  physical  peculiarities,  to  enjoy  the  climate  of  Africa, 
which  few  of  the  white  race  can  endure  :  and  that  these  will  multiply 
the  influence  of  Liberia  a  thousand  fold,  regenerate,  by  the  light  of 
Christian  truth,  the  whole  of  that  barbarous  and  benighted  continent, 
and  open  a  rich  field  of  civilization  to  the  commerce  of  the  world. 
Such,  my  Right  Ilevcrend  Brother,  is  the  view  which  I  have  taken, 


>  SUMMARY.  351 

on  this  most  important  and  deeply  interesting  subject.  Thus  be 
lieving,  I  claim  the  right  of  every  American  freeman  to  proclaim  rny 
belief,  and  utterly  deny  the  justice  or  propriety  of  your  denunciation 
for  the  maintenance  of  sentiments  which  have  been  held  substantially 
by  the  best  and  most  devoted  men  in  all  preceding  ages.  But  while 
I  have  plainly  expressed  my  sense  of  the  grievous  wrong  which  you 
and  your  clergy  have  committed,  both  in  the  fact  and  in  the  style  of 
your  false  and  libelous  Protest,  yet  I  should  be  blameworthy  if  I 
omitted  to  mention  the  Christian  and  manly  course  of  those  who  re 
fused  to  set  their  names  to  that  most  unwarrantable  document.  I 
thank  God  that  there  were  more  than  sixty  of  your  clergy  who  had 
the  honesty  and  courage  to  resist  the  pressure  of  the  popular  political 
current,  though  it  carried  you  and  so  many  others  away.  I  thank 
God  that  two  of  those  who  were  induced  to  sign  had  afterwards  the 
magnanimity  to  withdraw  their  names,  from  motives  of  honor  and  of 
conscience.  And  I  doubt  not  that  all  of  these  just  and  independent 
men,  who  had  the  firmness  to  withstand  the  force  so  strongly  used  ' 
to  warp  their  true  Church  principles,  will  be  rewarded,  not°only  by 
their  consciousness  of  religious  duty,  but  by  the  increased  respect  of 
all  candid  minds,  when  the  excitement  of  strife  and  passion  shall 
have  cooled  down,  and  given  place,  once  more,  to  the  counsels  of 
sober  sense  and  reason. 

With  respect  to  yourself  and  those  who  acted  with  you,  although 
I  am  compelled,  in  obedience  to  the  Apostolic  precept,  to  withdraw 
from  your  fellowship  and  to  admonish  you,  yet  I  wish  you  to  re 
member  that  I  do  so  without  any  personal  feelings  of  resentment.  I 
know  how  to  make  all  charitable  allowance  for  the  delusions  pro 
duced  by  the  warmth  of  political  zeal ;  and  I  regard  your  course 
with  the  indulgence  due  to  the  extravagance  of  good  men,  who  are 
for  a  time  demented.  I  have  lived  too  long  and  experienced  too 
much,  to  be  ignorant  of  the  devices  of  our  spiritual  adversary,  who 
understands  so  well  how  to  appear  as  an  angel  of  light.  Were  not 
the  most  pious  ministers  in  New-England  carried  away  into  acts  of 
horrid  injustice  during  the  times  of  the  Salem  witchcraft  ?  Did  they 
not  banish  the  zealous  Roger  Williams  into  the  wilderness,  in  the 
depth  of  a  severe  Northern  winter,  only  because  he  had  become  a 
Baptist  ?  Did  they  not  publicly  whip  his  followers  at  the  cart's  tail 
from  village  to  village,  and  hang  the  Quakers,  for  the  glory  of  God  ? 
It  was  the  accepted  notion  of  those  good  old  Puritans,  that  tolera- 


352  CONCLUSION. 

tion  of  religious  errors  was  the  doctrine  of  the  devil ;  and  in  all 
these  acts,  and  hundreds  of  the  same  character,  they  were  perfectly 
conscientious,  though  perfectly  deluded.  Nay,  we  have  a  still  more 
awful  instance  of  the  adversary's  power,  when  we  remember  that 
even  the  great  Apostle  Peter  was  led,  by  the  temptation  of  Satan,  to 
deny  his  Divine  Lord  and  Master  !  And  what  a  trifling  case  of  de 
lusion  does  your  Protest  against  the  poor  Bishop  of  Vermont  pre 
sent  in  comparison  with  examples  like  these  ! 

True  indeed,  it  is,  that  persecution  for  religious  opinions  has  long 
ceased  to  trouble  the  peace  of  society.  It  is  not  religion,  but  politics, 
which  now  excites  the  passions  of  men  ;  and  our  subtle  enemy  adapts 
himself  adroitly  to  the  change  of  circumstances,  wearing  the  robe  of 
Christian  philanthropy  to  give  him  influence  with  pious  minds,  but 
relying  on  political  zeal  to  stir  them  up  to  action.  That  is  the  reason 
why  my  publications  against  the  heresy  of  ultra-abolitionism  attracted 
no  notice  from  you  or  your  clergy,  until  the  Democratic  party  thought 
fit  to  use  them  in  your  election.  Then,  the  doctrines  which  were  pre 
viously  suffered  to  pass  without  the  slightest  sign  of  disapproval 
started  forth  to  your  excited  minds  under  a  new  aspect,  as  if  they 
were  the  very  utterances  of  treason.  Then,  the  ecclesiastical  thunder 
began  to  roll  in  the  Vatican  of  Pennsylvania.  And  then,  the  light 
ning  flash  of  your  redoubtable  Protest,  was  launched  at  my  devoted 
head  without  delay,  under  the  powerful  excitement  of  political  expe 
diency  ! 

So  be  it,  while  it  pleases  God  to  suffer  this  popular  frenzy  to  pre 
vail.  I  have  no  difficulty  in  forgiving  the  act,  as  a  small  example  of 
the  delusions  to  which  the  best  men  are  liable,  and  which,  sooner  or 
later,  are  certain  to  pass  away.  Meanwhile,  it  has  no  effect  on  my 
old  partiality  for  the  Diocese  and  State  of  Pennsylvania.  I  can  not 
forget  that  Philadelphia  was  the  principal  scene  of  my  education  ;  and 
the  memories  of  those  youthful  years  are  all  associated  with  persons 
and  with  places  on  which  I  look  back  with  peculiar  affection.  Pitts 
burgh  and  its  vicinity  were  the  witnesses  of  my  early  manhood.  It 
was  there  my  married  life  began.  There,  my  elder  children  were  born. 
There,  I  passed  through  the  struggles  which  prepared  me  for  success 
in  the  practice  of  the  law.  There,  I  entered  into  the  ministry,  and 
became  the  architect  and  first  rector  of  the  present  Trinity  Church — 
the  mother  of  so  many  of  your  western  parishes.  There,  I  passed 
eight  years  of  prosperous  labor,  under  the  wise  and  indulgent  gov- 


CONCLUSION.  353 

ernment  of  the  venerable  Bishop  White ;  when  as  yet  there  was  no 
ultra-abolitionism  to  raise  its  voice  against  the  Word  of  God,  and  the 
Constitution  of  our  country.  And  although  I  was  then  induced  to 
accept  a  call  to  Boston,  and  soon  afterwards  was  elected  as  the  Bishop 
of  Vermont,  yet  I  still  looked  on  Pittsburgh  and  Philadelphia  with 
special  attachment,  as  the  residence  of  many  personal  friends,  who 
esteemed  me  for  my  work,  and  whom  I  regarded  with  cordiality  and 
confidence.  During  the  thirty  years  which  have  since  elapsed,  I 
have  paid  numerous  visits  to  your  Diocese  ;  some  in  its  service,  and 
more  in  the  service  of  the  Church  Institutions  belonging  to  my  own. 
And  the  warm  hospitality,  the  generous  liberality,  and  the  kindly 
greetings  which  marked  those  visits,  have  left  a  grateful  impression 
on  my  heart,  too  deep  and  strong  for  a  hundred  protests  to  obliterate. 
Your  action,  of  necessity,  destroys  my  former  intercourse.  But  the 
old  feeling  remains  unchanged.  And  I  am  as  constant  as  ever  in  my 
prayer  that  the  blessing  of  God  may  rest,  in  rich  abundance,  on  the 
clergy  and  laity  of  Pennsylvania ! 

And  here,  my  Right  Reverend  Brother,  I  close  my  unwelcome  labor. 
Frankly  and  unreservedly,  but  I  trust  not  unkindly,  I  have  set  forth 
"  the  truth  wherein  I  stand."  It  is  the  same  truth  which  was  held 
from  the  beginning,  founded  on  the  absolute  Will  of  the  Almighty 
and  all-wise  Creator,  taught  by  Moses  and  the  prophets,  sanctioned 
by  the  inspired  Apostles,  and  maintained  by  the  Holy  Catholic  Church 
throughout  the  world,  even  to  our  own  day.  It  is  none  the  less  true, 
because,  in  many  portions  of  the  land,  it  has  become  distasteful. 
And,  therefore,  being  myself  the  "  bond-servant  of  Christ,"  our  divine 
Redeemer,  I  can  not  be  diverted  from  my  obligations  to  contend,  un 
der  his  banner,  for  the  authority  of  His  Word,  for  the  judgment  of 
His  Church,  and,  in  harmony  with  these,  for  the  allegiance  which  1 
owe  to  the  Constitution  of  my  country.  Relying  on  His  strength, 
which  is  "made  perfect  in  weakness,"  I  hope  to  persevere  in  the 
fearless  and  honest  performance  of  my  duty,  whether  popular  or  un 
popular,  whether  "in  honor  or  in  dishonor,"  looking  for  no  human 
praise,  and  dreading  no  human  censure,  but  depending,  with  all  hu 
mility,  yet  with  all  confidence,  on  Him  who  is  "  the  way,  the  truth, 
and  the  life,"  whose  Word  is  the  only  standard  of  right,  and  whose 
power  alone  can  secure  the  final  victory. 


APPENDIX. 


The  proper  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word  ^y  being  sometimes  denied,  I 
have  made  the  following  extracts  from  Bagster's  Polyglot,  showing  the  true 
sense  of  the  Hebrew,  as  it  was  given  by  the  Jews  themselves,  in  the  Septua- 
gint  version  of  the  Fourth  Commandment,  to  which  I  have  added  the  Vul 
gate  and  others. 

Thy  man-servant  and  tliy  maid-servant.     (Ex.  20  :  10.) 

6  Traif  oov  Kat  r)  TraidiaK?]  aov,  Septuagint. 

Servus  tuus  et  ancilla  tua,  Latin  Vulgate. 

dein  knecht,  noch  deine  magd,  German. 

ton  serviteur  ni  ta  servante,  French. 

tuo  servo,  ne  la  tua  serva,  Italian. 

ni  tu  siervo,  ni  tu  sierva,  Spanish. 

Now  the  word  used  here  by  the  old  Jews  of  Alexandria,  viz.,  7ra?f,  signi 
fies  a  child,  a  son,  a  daughter,  a  young  MALE  or  FEMALE  SLAVE.  See  Donne- 
garfs  Greek  and  English  Lexicon,  and  also  Liddell  and  Scott,  edited  by  Pro 
fessor  Drisler. 

The  appropriate  signification,  therefore,  must  be  that  of  bondman  and 
bondmaid,  or  male  and  female  slaves  ;  because  the  son  and  the  daughter  were 
already  mentioned  just  before.  And  this  is,  accordingly,  the  meaning  given 
in  the  Latin,  Italian,  and  Spanish  versions. 

The  Tenth  Commandment  has  the  same  words  as  the  Fourth,  both  in  the 
original  Hebrew,  and  in  all  the  versions.  Thus  we  have  slave  or  bondman 
in  the  Hebrew,  Greek,  Latin,  Spanish,  and  Italian,  and  servant  in  the  Ger 
man,  French,  and  English  versions. 

Levit.  20  :  44.  Both  thy  bondmen  and  thy  bondmaids  which  thou  shall 
have,  shall  be  of  the  heathen,  etc. 

Here  the  Hebrew  has  the  same  words  as  in  the  Fourth  and  Tenth  Com 
mandments,  j-ifcai  ^y. 

The  Septuagint  has  the  same,  •jrair  Kat 


APPENDIX.  355 

The  Latin  has  the  same,  servus  et  ancilla. 

The  German  has  the  same,  knecat  und  magd. 

The  French  has  esclave  et  servante. 

The  Italian  has  the  same,  servo  ed  alia  tua  serva. 

The  Spanish  has  the  same,  siervo  y  sierva. 

The  true  meaning  is  given  in  this  text,  by  all  the  versions  save  the  Ger 
man,  which  uses  the  doubtful  word  knccht,  as  before. 

To  these  I  shall  add  the  following,  from  Eobinson's  Gesenius :  "  "OS 
a  servant,  who  among  the  Hebrews  was  also  a  slave." 

"  In  addressing  superiors,  the  Hebrews,  from  modesty  or  humility  were  ac 
customed  to  call  themselves  servants,  and  those  whom  they  addressed,  lords." 

And  this  extract  from  Robinson's  edition  of  Calmet's  Dictionary  of  the 
Holy  Bible  agrees  with  all  the  rest,  viz.  :  "  Servant.  This  word,  in  Scrip 
ture,  generally  signifies  a  slave,  because,  among  the  Hebrews  and  the  neigh 
boring  nations,  the  greater  part  of  the  servants  were  such,  belonging  abso 
lutely  to  their  masters,  who  had  a  right  to  dispose  of  their  persons,  and  in 
some  cases,  even  of  their  lives." 

"Slavery,  compulsory  servitude.  To  punish  the  indignity  received  from 
his  son  Ham,  Noah  foretold  the  slavery  of  his  descendants.  Gen.  9  :  26." 

"  Moses  notices  two  or  three  sorts  of  slaves  among  the  Hebrews ;  who  had 
foreign  slaves,  obtained  by  capture,  by  purchase,  or  born  in  the  house.  Over 
these,  masters  had  entire  authority  ;  they  might  sell  them,  exchange  them, 
punish  them,  judge  them,  and  even  put  them  to  death  without  public  process. 
In  which  the  Hebrews  followed  the  rules  common  to  other  nations." 

The  meaning  of  dovAof,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  hardly  susceptible  of  a 
cavil.  It  signifies  a  slave,  according  to  Donnegan,  to  Liddell  and  Scott, 
edited  by  Professor  Drisler,  to  Parkhurst,  and,  in  a  word,  to  all  the  authori 
ties.  Of  course,  examples  may  be  found  in  which  both  these  words  are  ap 
plied  in  another  sense  than  that  of  strict  bodily  servitude  for  life.  Thus, 
no  word  is  better  understood  than  our  English  term  slave,  yet  we  use  it  con 
stantly  in  a  larger  sense,  as  when  we  say,  a  slave  to  lust,  a  slave  to  drink,  a 
slave  to  fashion,  a  slave  to  popularity.  So,  too,  we  say  of  an  overtasked 
wife:  "She  is  a  perfect  slave  to  her  husband."  But  this  license  does  not 
interfere  with  the  proper  meaning  of  the  term,  which  is  as  firmly  fixed  as 
language  can  be. 

On  the  meaning  of  the  Latin  word  servus,  which  is  invariably  applied  in 
the  sense  of  slave,  there  is  and  can  be  no  dispute  whatever. 

NOTE  2. 

From  the  foregoing  examples  it  will  appear  manifest  that  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  Hebrew  JEbed,  and  the  Greek  doulos,  and  the  Latin  servus^ 


356  APPENDIX. 

is  a  bond-servant  or  slave.  The  hired  servant  is  expressed  in  all  these 
languages  by  a  different  word — sakir  in  the  Hebrew,  misthotos  or  mis- 
thophoros  in  the  Greek,  and  mercenarius  in  the  Latin.  Our  translators 
have  not  been  precise  in  our  English  Bible.  In  some  places  they  have  trans 
lated  the  very  same  word  by  bond-servant,  and  in  a  far  greater  number  they 
have  employed  the  general  term  servant,  while,  in  almost  all,  they  have 
avoided  the  word  slave,  doubtless  because  slavery  had  died  out  in  England 
before  the  reign  of  James  I.,  when  their  translation  was  published,  and  they 
wished  to  secure  the  advantage  of  the  precepts  in  the  Scriptures  for  the  re 
lation  of  master  arid  servant,  in  the  form  which  was  customary  at  the  time. 
The  Southern  slaveholders  and  their  slaves  continue  the  same  practice  of 
avoiding  the  word  slave.  The  milder  word,  servant,  is  the  only  one  in  com 
mon  use  among  them.  But  if  our  English  Bible  had  been  translated  with  a 
view  to  the  present  question,  which  had  not  then  been  contemplated  in  its 
moral  and  religious  aspect,  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  would  have  ap 
peared,  as  it  really  is,  perfectly  free  from  any  ambiguity, 

NOTE  3. 
De  Jure  personarum. 

Summa  itaque  divisio  de  jure  personarum  haec  est :  quod  omnes  homines 
aut  liberi  sunt  aut  servi.  Et  libertas  quidem  (ex  qua  etiam  liberi  vocantur) 
est  naturalis  facultas  ejus,  quod  cuique  facere  libet,  nisi  si  quid  vi  aut  jure 
prohibetur.  Servitus  autem  est  constitutio  juris  gentium,  qua  quis  dominio 
alieno  contra  naturam  subjicitur. 

Servi  autem  ex  eo  appellati  sunt,  quod  Imperatores  captivos,  vender e  ac 
per  hoc  servare,  nee  occidere  solent :  qui  etiam  mancipia  dicti  suut,  quod  ab 
hostibus  manu  capiuntur. 

Servi  autem  aut  nascuntur,  aut  fiunt :  nascuntur  ex  ancillis  nostris :  fiunt 
aut  jure  gentium,  id  est,  ex  captivitate,  aut  jure  civili,  cum  liber  homo  major 
xx  annis  ad  pretium  participandum  sese  venundari  passus  est.  In  servorum 
conditione  nulla  est  differentia:  in  liberis  autem  multae:  aut  enim  sunt  in- 
genui,  aut  libertini. — Inst.  Justin.  L.  1.  Tit.  III.  Corpus  Juris  Civilis. 
Ed.  Amstel.  1663.  Tom.  1,  p.  4. 

NOTE  4. 

Libertini  sunt,  qui  ex  justa  servitute  manumissi  sunt.  Manumissio  autem 
est  de  manu  datio,  nam  quamdiu  aliquis  in  servitute  est,  manui  et  potestati 
suppositus  est:  manumissus,  liberatur  po testate.  Quae  res  a  jure  gentium 
originem  sumpsit:  utpote  cum  jure  naturali  omnes  liberi  nascerentur,  nee 
esset  nota  manumissio,  cum  servitus  esset  incognita.  Sed  postquam  jure 
gentium  servitus  invasit,  sequutum  est  beneficium  manumissionis :  et  cum 
uno  communi  nomine  omnes  homines  appellarentur,  jure  gentium  tria 


APPENDIX.  357 

hominum  genera  esse  coeperunt:  liberi,  et  his  contrarium  servi,  et  tertiura 
genus  libertini,  qui  desierant  esse  servi.  Multis  autem  modis  manumissio 
procedit :  aut  enim  ex  sacris  constitutionibus  in  sacrosanctis  Ecclesiis,  aut 
vindicta  manumittitur,  aut  inter  amicos,  aut  per  epistolam,  aut  per  testa- 
mentum,  aut  per  aliam  quamlibet  ultimam  voluntatem. — Inst.  Justin.  Corp. 
Juris  CiviliS)  Tom  1,  p.  4. 

NOTE  5. 

Sequitur  de  jure  personaruna  alia  divisio.  Nam  quaedam  personae  sui 
juris  sunt,  quaedam  alieno  jure  subjectae.  Eursus  earum,  quae  alienojuri 
subjectae  sunt,  alias  sunt  in  potestate  parentum,  alias  in  potestate  domino- 
rum. — In  potestate  itaque  dominorum  sunt  servi,  quae  quidem  potestas, 
juris  gentium  est.  Nam  apud  omnes  peraeque  gentes  animadvertere  possu- 
mus,  dominis  in  servos  vitae  necisque  potestatem  fuisse :  et  quodcumque  per 
servum  adquiritur,  id  domino  adquiri. 

Sed  hoc  tempore  nullis  hominibus,  qui  sub  imperio  nostro  sunt,  licet  sine 
causa  legibus  cognita,  in  servos  suos  supra  modum  saevire.  Nam  ex  con- 
stitutione  divi  Antonini,  qui  sine  causa  servum  suum  occiderit,  non  minus 
puniri  jubetur,  quam  si  alienum  servum  occidenit.  Sed  et  major  asperitas 
dominorum  ejusdem  principis  constitutione  coercetur :  nam  Antoninus 
consultus  a  quibusdam  praasidibus  provinciarum  de  his  servis,  qui  ad  aedem 
sacram,  vel  ad  statuam  principum  confugiunt,  praecipit,  ut  si  intolerabilis 
videatur  sa3vitia  dominorum,  cogantur  servos  suos  bonis  conditionibus  ven- 
dere,  ut  pretium  dominis  daretur :  et  recte  :  expedit  enim  reipublicae,  ne 
sua  re  quis  male  utatur. — Corpus  Civilis,  (Inst.  Justin.)  Tom.  1.,  p.  5. 

NOTE  6. 

§  17.  Item  ea  quae  ex  hostibus  capimus,  jure  gentium  statim  nostra  fiunt : 
adeo  quidem,  ut  et  liberi  homines  in  servitutem  nostram  deducantur,  qui 
tamen,  si  evaserint  nostram  potentiam,  et  ad  suos  reversi  fuerint,  priinum 
statum  recipiunt. —  Corpus  Civilis,  (Instit.  Justin.)  Tom.  1,  p.  10. 

NOTE  7. 
Tit.  iv.  De  injuriis. 

§  3.  Servis  autem  ipsis  quidem  nulla  injuria  fieri  intelligitur,  sed  domino 
per  eos  fieri  videtur :  non  tamen  iisdem  modis  quibus  etiam  per  liberos  et 
uxores :  sed  ita,  cum  quid  atrocius  commissum  fuerit,  et  quod  aperte  ad 
contumeliam  domini  respicit :  veluti  si  quis  alienum  servum  atrociter  verb- 
eraverit :  et  in  hunc  casum  actio  proponitur.  At  si  quis  servo  convicium 
fecerit,  vel  pugno  eum  percusserit :  nulla  in  eum  actio  domino  competit. 
— Corpus  Civilis,  (Tnstitut.  Justin.)  Tom.  1,  p.  32. 

NOTE  8. 
Servos  sane  sociari  clericorum  consortiis,  volentibus  atque  consentientibua 


358  APPENDIX. 

dominis,  modis  omnibus  prohibemus  :  cum  liceat  eorum  dominis,  data  prius 
servis  libertate,  licitum  cis  ad  suscipiendos  honores  clericorum  iter  (si  hoc 
voluerint)  aperire. — Corpus  Juris  Civilis,  (Codex  Justin.)  Tom.  11,  p.  16. 

NOTE  9. 

Si  servus,  scicnte  domino,  et  non  contradicente,  in  clericum  ordinatus 
fuerit  ab  Episcopo  :  ex  hoc  ipso,  quod  constitutes  est,  liber  et  ingenuus  erit. 
Si  vero,  ignorante  domino,  ordinatus  fuerit ;  liceat  domino,  intra  anni  unius 
spatium,  et  servilem  fortunam  probare,  et  servum  suum  accipere.  Si  vero 
servus,  sciente  vel  nesciente  domino  (sicut  diximus)  ideo  quod  in  clero 
constitutus,  liber  est  factus,  ministerium  ecclesiasticum  reliquerit,  et  ad 
secularem  vitam  transient ;  suo  domino  ad  serviendum  tradatur. — Corpus 
Juris  Civilis,  (Codex  Justin.)  Tom.  11,  p.  16. 

NOTE  10. 

Quoniam  igitur  de  servis  fugitivis  ad  vitam  monasticam  devenientibus, 
statuturn  a  superioribus  est,  ut  si  intra  tres  annos  fugitivus  manifestus  fiat, 
ilium  habitu  nudatum  recipiendi  facultatem  dominus  habeat :  si  vero 
usque  in  tertium  annum  incognitus  manserit,  tametsi  postmodum  agnosca- 
tur,  ut  domini  potestati  non  obnoxius  sit,  prseterque  illius  voluntatem  liber 
nuncupetur :  et  vero  inde  multos  fugiendi  dominos  suos  occasionem  cepisse, 
ac  re  honesta  monastics  vitae  professione,  ad  tegendam  malitiam  abuti 
videmus,  (cuilibet  enim  servo  perfacile  est,  ut  ad  triennium  se  occultet, 
deindeque  libertatem  consequatur,)  jubemus,  ut  quantocunque  ternpore 
servus  tali  consilio  monachus  factus  delituerit,  si  ipsum  aliquando  dominus 
inveniat,  nihilominus  is  quern  malo  proposito  habitum  sumpsit,  hoc  exuatur, 
rursumque  in  domini  potestatem  subigatur. — Corpus  Juris  Civilis,  (Imp. 
Lconis  Constit.  X.)  Tom.  11,  p.  242,  pars  2. 

NOTE  11. 

De  illis  servis  quibus  nesciente  domino  ad  primarii  sacerdotii  honores 
consccndere  visum  est,  statuimus :  ut  videlicet  secundum  ecclesiasticaa 
constitutionis  voluntatem  exauthorati,  honore  in  quern  clam  irrepserint, 
priventtir,  et  ad  suum  servilemque  statum  revocantur. — Imp.  Leonis  Const. 
XL  Corpus  Juris  Civilis.  Tom.  11,  pars  2,  p.  242. 

NOTE  12. 

Testimonium  cum  magni  momenti,  necessariaque  ad  tuenda  communis 
vitas  negotia  res  sit,  non  a  quibuslibet,  sed  ab  iis  qui  extra  ignominiam  vi- 
vunt,  ferri  aequum  est.  Recte  ergo  exquisita  ratione  de  hoc  disceptant 
leges,  et  non  simpliciter  ad  dicendum  tcstimonium  cuique  aditum  praebent. 
Verumtamen,  quia  nonnullae  leges  servilis  conditions  hominibus  in  quibus- 
dam  rebus  testai  i  concesserunt ;  visum  nobis  est,  hoc  nota  inducendum 


APPENDIX.  359 

esse,  ut  qui  liberae  vitee  participes  non  sunt,  in  universum  ad  testandum  non 
admittantur,  lexque  Novellarum  Constitutionum  obtineat,  et  de  quocunque 
simpliciter  testimonio  statuat,  idque  in  quacunque  re,  sive  testamenta,  sive 
aliam  humanaa  vitae  actionem  testimonium  complectatur.  Si  enim  illis  qui 
cum  liberae  vitae  siut,  vitam  ingenue,  eaque  libertate  quam  nacti  sunt  digne 
non  degunt,  neque  quantum  fieri  potest  animi  magnitudinem  a  servitute 
liberam  conservant,  sed  in  illicitariun  actionum  servitutem  subiguntur,  tes 
timonium  dicere  non  licet:  neque  his  quorum  vitam  non  esse  liberam 
coustat,  ferre  testimonium  concedetur.  Nam  tametsi  alius  hie  servitutis 
modus  sit,  attamen  ea  servitus  est,  quam  libertatis  dignitate  participem  esse 
indignum  sit. — Imper.  Leonis  Constit.  XLIX.  Corpus  Juris  Civilis,  Tom. 
11,  pars  2,  p.  257. 

NOTE  13. 

Si  quis  ita  demens  sit,  ut  libertatem  servitute  commutans  seipsum  ven- 
dat,  ne  is  contractus  validus  sit,  sed  evertatur,  et  simul  ipse  libertatis  suas 
proditor,  simul  is  qui  cum  ipso  id  facinus  designavit,  verberibus  castigen- 
tur,  uihiloque  minus  vesaniae  maricipio  libertas  in  pristine  suo  statu  ser- 
vetur.— Imp.  Leoms  Constit.  LIX.  Corpus  Juris  Civilis.  Tom  11  pars 
2,  p.  260. 

The  reasons  assigned  for  this  imperial  change  in  the  civil  law  make  no 
allusion  whatever  to  religion. 

NOTE  14. 

Servitus  quasdam  animi,  quasdam  corporis  dicitur ;  corporibus  dominantur 
homines,  anirnis  affectus  et  vitia. — Phil  Jud.  p.  8G7. 

NOTE  15. 

At  lex  divina  regulas  juris  non  fortunes  sed  nature  accommodat.  Ideo 
decet  dominos  non  abuti  sua  potestate  contra  famulos,  cavereque  ab  inso- 
lencia,  contemptu  atque  saBvitia.  Nam  ista  nou  sunt  indicia  placidi  animi, 

sed  impotentiae   tyrannicaa,  exercentis  licentiam  pro  arbitrio. Phil.  Jud. 

Liber  de  Special.  Leg.  p.  798. 

NOTE  16. 

Quid  enim  injustius,  quid  iniquius,  et  improbrius,  qudm  ita  alieno  bene- 
facere  servo,  ut  domino  eripiatur,  ut  alii  vindicetur,  ut  adversus  caput  do- 
mini  subornetur,  et  quidem,  quo  indignius,  in  ipsa  adhuc  domo  domini,  de 
ipsius  adhuc  horreis  vivens,  sub  ipsius  adhuc  plagis  tremens  ?  Talis  adscr- 
tor  etiam  damnaretur  in  seculo,  nedum  plagiator.— Tertul  adv  Marcion 
Lib.  1,  §  XXIII.  p.  377,  C. 

NOTE  17. 

Quicunque  sunt  sub  jugo  servi  Dominos  suos  omni  honore  d'ignos  arbi- 
trentur.  Non  solum  bonos,  sed  etiam  infideles.  Ne  vidieantur  per  religionem 


360  APPENDIX. 

in  deterius  profecisse.  Ne  sibi  aequalem  contemnant.  Si  serviebant  infidel- 
ibus  timore  odioso,  quanto  magis  debent  servire  fidelibus  quorum  charitutia 
participes  esse  merentur. — Hieron.  Op.  T.  IX.  p.  314. 

NOTE  18. 

Christianas  religion!  conditio  non  potcst  obesse  servilis,  ne  dicas  ergo,  quo 
modo  Deo  possum  placere,  qui  servua  sum  ?  Deus  enim  non  conditionem 
aspicit,  sed  voluntatem  quaorit  et  mentem.  Usque  adeo  non  prodest  libertas, 
nee  servitus  nocet — Qui  hominis  servus  est,  liber  est  Deo,  et  qui  hominibus 
liber  est,  servus  est  Christi.  Ambo  ergo  unum  sunt. — Op.  Hieron.  Tom.  IX. 
p.  249. 

NOTE  19. 

Providet  sane  hie  Apostolus,  ne  doctrina  Dei  in  aliquo  blasphemetur,  si 
credentes  servi  suis  dominis  inutiles  fiant.  Et  qui  forte  permissurus  erat 
alios  servos  fieri  Christianos,  de  ipsis  jam  factis  incipiat  poenitere.  Si  vero 
viderit  eos  in  melius  profecisse,  et  ex  infidelibus  fideles  effectos,  non  solum 
alios  optabit  credere  famulos  suos,  sed  etiam  ipse  fortasse  salvabitur. — 
Hieron.  Op.  T.  IX.  p.  294. 

NOTE  20. 

Sed  hoc  mundi  iniquitate  factum  est,  ut  dum  alter  alterius  fines  invadit, 
tune  captivos  ducit  ingenuos,  unde  et  manu  capti  dicti  sunt  a  veteribus,  inde 
mancipia.  Hie  casus  et  conditio  etiam  nunc  apparet,  alii  redimuntur,  alii 
remanent  servi.  Apud  Deum  autem  hie  servus  habetur,  qui  peccaverit. 
Denique  peccati  causa  Cham  servus  audivit :  Maledictus  puer  Chanaan,  ser 
vus  servorum  erit  fratribus  suis. — 8.  Ambros.  Supp.  Comm.  in  Epist.  ad 
Coloss.  Tom.  2  Op.  p.  in  app.  274. 

NOTE  21. 

Servorum  obsequiis  dominos  Deo  gratias  vult  referre,  cum  enim  per  Dei 
disciplinam  fidelia  illis  exhibuerint  servitia,  forte  huic  etiam  ipsi  se  subjicient 
discipline.  Si  profanis  dominis  serviendum  tota  solicitudine  imperat,  quanto 
magis  fidelibus  ?  Tune  enim  probat  se  timori  Dei  subjectum,  si  fideli  et 
temporal!  domino  toto  animo  fuerit  obsequtuus. — App.  Op.  8.  Ambros. 
Tom.  2,  p.  302.  Com.  in  1  Tim.  6  :  1-2. 

NOTE  22. 

Tu  (i.  e.  Ecclesia  Catholica)  dominis  servos,  non  tarn  conditionis  necessi 
tate,  quam  officii  delectatione  doces  adhaerere.  Tu  dominos  servis,  summi 
Dei  communis  Domini  consideratione  placabiles,  et  ad  consulendum  quam 
eoerceudum  propensiores  facis. — Augustini  Op.  Tom.  I.  p.  527,  /. 

NOTE  23. 
Timet  servus  offendere  domiuum  suum  ne  jubeut  ilium  verberari,  jubeat 


APPENDIX.  361 

in  compedes  mitti,  jubeat  carcere  includi,  jubeat  eum  pistrino  contineri. 
Hasc  timens  scrvus  nou  peccat. — Augustlni  Op.  Tom.  V.  p.  542,  D. 

NOTE  24. 

Servum  autem  homincm  homini,  vel  iniquitas  vel  adversitas  fecit ;  iniquitas 
quidem,  sicut  dictum  est:  Maledictus  Chanaan,  erit  servus  fratribus  suis : 
adversitas  vero,  sicut  accedit  ipsi  Joseph,  ut  venditus  a  fratribus  servus  alieni- 
genae  fieret.  Itaque  primos  servos,  quibus  hoc  nomen  in  Latina  lingua  in- 
ditum  est,  bella  fecerunt.  Qui  enim  homo  ab  homine  superatus  jure  belli 
possit  occidi,  quia  servatus  est,  servus  est  appellatus ;  inde  et  mancipia,  quia 
manu  capta  sunt.  Est  etiam  ordo  naturalis  in  hominibus,  ut  serviant  feminaa 
viris,  et  filii  parentibus  :  quia  et  illic  hsec  justitia  est,  ut  infirmior  ratio  ser- 
viat  fortiori.  Haec  igitur  in  dominationibus  et  servitutibus  clara  justitia  est, 
ut  qui  excellunt  ratione,  excellant  dominatione. — Aug.  Op.  Tom.  III. 
p.  311,  C. 

NOTE  25. 

Quae  de  servo  Hebraeo  praecipiuntur,  ut  sex  annos  serviat,  et  dimittatur  liber 
gratis,  ne  servi  Christian!  hoc  flagitarent  a  dominis  suis,  Apostolica  auctoritas 
jubet  servos  dominis  fcuis  esse  subditos,  ne  nomen  Dei  et  doctrina  blasphem- 
etur.  Illud  enim  ex  hoc  satis  constat  in  mysterio  praeceptum,  quia  ct  per- 
tundi  subula  ejus  aurem  ad  postern,  prD3cipit  Deus,  qui  libertatem  illam 
recusasset. — Aug.  Op.  Tom.  III.  p.  333,  E. 

NOTE  26. 

Prima  et  quotodiana  potestas  hominis  in  hominem  domini  est  in  servum. 
Prop6  omnes  domus  habent  hujusmodi  potestatem.  Sunt  domini,  sunt  et 
servi,  diversa  sunt  nomina  ;  sed  homines  et  homines  paria  sunt  nomiua.  Et 
quid  dicit  Apostolus,  docens  servos  dominis  suis  subditos  esse  ?  Servi  ob- 
audite  domiuis  vestris  secundum  carnem :  quia  est  Dbminus  secundum  Spiri- 
tum.  Ille  est  verus  Dominus  et  aeternus,  illi  autem  temporales  secundum 
tempus.  Tu  cum  ambulas  in  via,  cum  vivis  in  hac  vita,  non  vult  te  facere 
superbum  Christus.  Contigit  tibi  ut  Christianus  efficeris,  et  haberes  dominum 
hominem ;  non  ideo  Christianus  effectus  es,  ut  dedigneris  servire.  Cum 
enim  Christo  jubente  servis  homini,  non  illi  servis,  sed  illi  qui  jussit.  Et  hoc 
ait,  Obaudite  dominis  vestris  secundum  carnem,  cum  timore  et  tremore,  in 
simplicitate  cordis,  non  ad  oculum  servientes,  quasi  hominibus  placentes,  sed 
quasi  servi  Christi,  facientes  voluntatem  Dei  ex  animo,  cum  bona  voluntate. 
Ecce  non  fecit  de  servis  liberos,  sed  de  malis  servis  bonos  servos.  Quantum 
debent  divites  Christo,  qui  illis  componit  domum  ? — August.  Op.  Enar.  in 
Ps.  124,  Tom.  IV.  Pars  Prima,  p.  1059,  C. 

NOTE  27. 

Porro  quicumque  servi  sub  jugo  detenti,  ad  fratrum  conventum  confugiunt, 
16 


362  APPENDIX. 

admoniti  et  meliores  effecti,  ad  dominos  suos  remittendi  sunt :  in  quo  imitan- 
dus  est  beatus  Paulus,  qui,  cum  genuiset  Onesimum  per  evangelium,  eum  ad 
Philemonem  remisit. — S.  Basil.  Op.  T.  2,  p.  353,  D.  et  T.  3,  p.  479,  A.  B. 

NOTE  28. 
Regula  LXXV. 

Qu6d  oportet  servos,  cum  omni  benevolentia  ad  Dei  gloriam  suis  secunduin 
camera  dominis  obedire,  in  iis  certe,  in  quibus  mandatum  Dei  non  solvitur. 

Caput  1. 

Servi  obedite  dominis  carnalibus  cum  timore  et  tremore  in  simplicitate 
cordis  vestri,  sicut  Christo :  non  ad  oculum  servientes,  quasi  homini  placentes, 
sed  ut  servi  Christi,  facientes  voluntatem  Dei  ex  animo,  cum  benevolentia 
servientes,  sicut  Domino,  et  non  hominibus :  scientes  quoniam  unusquisque 
quodcumque  fecerit  bonum,  hoc  recipiet  a  Domino,  sive  servus,  sive  liber. 
Quicumque  sunt  sub  jugo  servi,  dominos  suos  omni  honore  dignos  arbitrentur, 
ne  nomen  Dei  et  doctrina  blasphemetur.  Qui  autem  fideles  habent  dominos, 
non  contemnant,  quia  fratres  sunt,  sed  magis  serviant,  quia  fideles  sunt  et 
dilecti,  qui  beneficii  participes  sunt.  Servos  dominis  suis  subditos  esse,  in 
omnibus  placentes,  non  contradicentes,  non  fraudentes,  sed  omnem  fidem 
bonam  ostendentes,  ut  doctrinam  Salvatoris  nostri  Dei  ornent  in  omnibus. 
—•&  Basil,  Op.  Om.  T.  II.  p.  310. 

NOTE  29. 

Aut  enim  potentia  oppressi,  sub  jugum  servitutis  inducti  sunt,  velut  in  bello 
capti,  aut  ob  paupertatem  in  servitutem  edacti  sunt  velut  JSgypti  Pharaoni, 
aut juxta  sapientem  quandam  et  arcanam  dispensationem,  qui  inter  filios  de- 
teriores  sunt,  parentum  voce,  sapientioribus  ac  melioribus  in  servitutem  ad- 
dicti  sunt,  quam  haudquaquam  condemnationem,  sed  beneficium  potius  dix- 
erit  sequus  rerum  estimator.  Nam  qui  ob  sensus  inopiam,  non  habet  in  sese 
id  quod  natura  imperat,  huic  utilius  est  alterius  fieri  mancipium. — S.  Basil, 
Op.  Om.  T.  III.  p.  42-3. 

NOTE  30. 

Unusquisque  .n  qua  vocatione  vocatus  es,  in  ea  permaneat.  Uxorem  ha- 
bens  infidelem  vocatus  es,  permane  earn  habens,  ne  propter  fidem  ejicias  ux- 
orem.  Servus  cum  esses,  fuisti  vocatus :  ne  sit  tibi  curse,  permane  serviens. 
Cum  praeputium  haberes  es  vocatus,  permane  habens  prseputium.  Credi- 
disti  cum  esses  circumcisus,  permane  circumcisus.  Quomodo  nihil  juvat  cir- 
cumcisio,  neque  Isedit  praeputium,  ita  neque  servitus  neque  libertas.  Et  ut 
ex  abundantia  hoc  docerit  evidentius,  dicit:  Sed  si  potes  fieri  liber,  magis 
utere.  Hoc  est,  magis  servi.  Et  curnam  eum  qui  potest  liberari,  jubet  ma- 
nere  servum  ?  Volens  ostendere  quod  nihil  laedit  servitus,  sed  etiam  prodest. 


APPENDIX.  363 

Neque  vero  ignoreraus,  quod  quidam  illud,  Magis  utcre,  aiunt  dictum  esse  de 
libertate,  dicentes,  Si  potes  liberari,  liberare.  Modo  autem  Pauli  hoc  verbum 
est  valde  contrarium,  si  hoc  significat.  Non  enim  consolans  scrvum,  osten. 
dendo  eum  nulla  esse  injuria  affectum,  jussisset  eum  fieri  liberum.  Diceret 
enim  forte  quispiam,  Quid  vero  si  non  possum,  affectus  sum  injuria  et  dam- 
num  accepi.  Non  ergo  hoc  dicit,  sed  sicut  dixi,  volens  ostendere  quod  nihil 
emolument!  ei  obtingit  qui  factus  est  liber,  dicit :  Etiamsi  sit  in  tua  potestate 
ut  manumittaris  et  liber  fias,  permane  potius  serviens.  Deinde  subjungit 
etiam  causam.  Qui  enim  in  Domino  vocatus  est  servus,  libertus  est  Domini. 
Similiter  qui  liber  vocatus  est,  servus  est  Christi.  In  iis  enim  quae  sunt  secun- 
dum  Christum,  ambo  sunt  pares. — Quomodo  ergo  qui  est  servus,  est  libertus  ? 
Quoniam  se  liberavit,  non  solum  a  peccato,  sed  etiam  ab  externa  servitute, 
manentem  servum. — Et  quomodo  qui  est  servus  est  liber,  manens  servus? 
Quando  fuerit  liberatus  ab  affectionibus  et  animi  aegritudinibus.  Quando 
despexerit  pecunias,  iramque  et  ejusmodi  alias  animi  perturbationes.  Pretio 
cmpti  estis:  nolite  fieri  servi  hominnm.  Hoc  dictum  est  non  solum  servis  sed 
etiam  liberis.  Fieri  enim  potest  ut  et  cum  sit  servus,  non  sit  servus,  et  cum 
sit  liber,  sit  servus.  Et  quomodo  cum  sit  servus,  non  est  servus  ?  Quando 
propter  Deum  omnia  fecerit :  quando  non  simularit  neque  fuerit  h ypocrita, 
nee  aliquid  agat  ut  serviat  oculis  hominum :  hoc  est  hominibus  servientem 
esse  liberum.  Aut  quomodo  rursus  quispiam  cum  sit  liber,  fiat  servus  ? 
Quando  hominibus  aliquod  malum  obit  ministerium,  aut  propter  ingluviem, 
aut  propter  pecunise  cupiditatem,  aut  propter  potentiam.  Nam  qui  est  ejus 
modi,  est  omnibus  servilior,  etsi  sit  liber.  Utraque  autem  hsec  considera. 
Servus  erat  Joseph :  sed  non  servus  hominum.  Quamobrem  etiam  in  servi 
tute  erat  omnibus  hominibus  liberior.  Dominae  quidem  certe  non  cessit  in 
iis  quae  volebat  quae  ipsum  possidebat.  Kursus  ilia  erat  libera,  et  omnibus 
erat  servilior,  ut  quae  servo  assentaretur  et  eum  rogaret  et  provocaret.  Sed 
non  persuasit  libero  ut  faceret  quod  noluit.  Non  erat  ergo  res  ilia  scrvitus, 
sed  summa  libertas.  Quid  enim  illi  ad  virtutem  impedimento  fuit  servitus  ? 
Audiant  servi  et  liberi. — Hoc  quidem  certe  tacite  significat  dicens,  Nolite 
fieri  servi  hominum.  Si  autem  non  ita  est,  sed  jussit  dominos  relinquere,  et 
contendere  ut  fiant  liberi,  quomodo  monebat  dicens,  Unusquisque  in  eo 
maneat  in  quo  vocatus  est?  et  alibi,  quicumque  sunt  sub  jugo  servi,  suos 
dominos  omni  honore  dignos  ceuseant. — Ad  Ephesios  quoque  scribens  et 
Colossenses,  eadem  praecipit  et  statuit.  Unde  est  perspicuum  quod  non 
tollit  hanc  servitutem,  sed  earn  quae  est  a  vitio,  in  qua  sunt  etiam  liberi. — 
S.  Chrysostom,  in  Ep.  ad.  Corin.  c.  vii.  Horn.  xix.  Ed.  Paris,  1636.  T.  v. 
p.  196-8. 

NOTE  31. 
Nomen  et  conditioned  servitutis  culpa  genuit,  non  natura,  et  prima  hujus 


364  APPENDIX. 

subjectionis  causa  peccatum  est ;  quia  sicut  scriptum  est.  Omni*  qui  facit 
peccatum,  servua  est  peccati.  Unde  melior  ejus  status  est  qui  famulatur  ho- 
mini,  quam  qui  sua3  servit  cupiditati. — Prosper.  Aquit.  Op.  Om.  p.  566. 

NOTE  32. 

Sciendum  est  duo  genera  esse  bonae  servitutis :  unum  timoris,  aliud  dilec- 
tionis :  unum  timentium  ancillorum  et  servorum,  aliud  diligentium  et  placeu- 
tium  filiorum,  timet  enim  ancilla,  ne  flagelletur,  timet  matrona,  ne  offendat 
aniinum  viri  sui. — S.  Greg.  Mag.  Op.  T.  III.  Par.  2,  p.  562. 

NOTE  33. 

"Admonitio  VI.  —  Aliter  admonendi  sunt  servi,  atque  aliter  domini. 
Servi,  scilicet,  ut  in  se  semper  humilitatem  conditionis  aspiciant:  domini 
vero,  ut  naturae  sua3  qua  aequaliter  sunt  cum  servis  conditi,  memoriam  non 
amittant.  Servi  admonendi  sunt  ne  dominos  despiciant,  ne  Deum  offendant 
si  ordinationi  illius  superbiendo  contradicunt :  domini  quoque  admonendi 
sunt,  quia  contra  Deum  de  munere  ejus  superbiunt,  si  eos  quos  per  condi- 
tionem  tenent  subditos,  requales  sibi  per  nature  consortium  non  agnoscent. 
Isti  admonendi  sunt  ut  sciant  se  servos  esse  dominorum ;  illi  admonendi 
eunt  ut  cognoscant  se  conserves  esse  servorum.  Istis  namque  dicitur :  servi, 
obedite  dominis  carnalibus.  Et  rursum :  quicumque  sunt  sub  jugo  servi, 
dominos  suos  omni  honore  dignos  arbitrentur :  illis  autem  dicitur :  et  vos, 
domini,  eadem  facite  illis,  remittentes  minas,  scientes  quod  et  illorum  et 
vester  Dominus  est  in  coelis." — S.  Greg.  Mag.  Op.  Pastoralis  Curce,  Pars 
3,  c.  1. 

NOTE  34. 
"  Gregorius  Felici  Episcopo  Portuensi. " 

"  Charitatis  vestrse  gratia  provocati,  ne  infructuosi  vobis  videamurexistere, 
praecipue  cum  et  minus  vos  habere  servitia  noverimus,  ideo  Johannem  juris 
ecclesiastici  famulum,  natione  Sabinum,  ex  masstt  *  Flavian^,  annorum  plus 
minus  decem  et  octo,  quern  nostra  voluntate  jam  diu  possidetis,  fraternitati 
vestrae  jure  directo  donamus  atque  concidemus  ;  ita  ut  eum  habeatis,  possi- 
deatis,  atque  juri  proprietatique  vestrae  vindicetis  atque  defendatis,  et  quid- 
quid  de  eo  facere  volueritis,  quippe  ut  dominus,  ex  hujus  donatioriis  jure 
libero  potiamini  arbitrio.  Contra  quam  munificentia3  nostrae  chartulam 
nunquam  nos  successoresque  nostros  noveris  esse  venturos.  Hanc  autem 
donationem  a  Notario  nostro  perscriptam  legimus  atque  subscripsimus,  tribu- 
entes  etiam,  non  expectata  professione  vestra,  quo  volueritis  tempore  alli- 
gandi  licentiam  legitima  stipulatione  et  sponsione  interpositit.  Actum 
Roma}."— S.  Greg.  Mag.  Op.  Libert.  Ep.  LIT. 

*  The  massa  above  mentioned  was  generallj'  a  farm  or  plantation. 


APPENDIX.  3fi5 

NOTE  35. 

Proptcr  peccatum  prinu  hominis  humano  genori  pcena  divinitus  illata  est 
servitutis,  ita  ut  quibus  aspicit  non  congruere  libertatem,  his  misericordius 
irroget  servitutera.  Et  licet  peccatum  humange  originis  per  baptismi  gratiam 
cuuctis  fidelibus  dimissum  sit,  tamen  aequus  Deus  ideo  discrevit  hominibus 
vitam,  alios  servos  constituens,  alios  dominos :  ut  licentia  male  agendi  servo- 
rum,  potestate  domiuantiutn  restringatur.  Nam  si  omnes  sine  metu  fuissent, 
quis  esset  qui  a  mails  quempiam  prohiberet  ?  Inde  et  in  gentibus  principes 
regesque  electi  sunt,  ut  terrore  suo  populos  a  malo  coercerent,  atque  ad  recte 
viveudum  legibus  subderent. — Melior  est  subjecta  servitus,  quam  elata  liber- 
tas.  Hulti  enim  inveniuntur  Deo  libere  servientes  sub  dominis  flagitiosis,  qui 
et  si  subject!  sunt  illis  corpore,  praelati  tamen  sunt  mente. — Isidor.  HispaL 
Op.  Om.  Sentent.  L.  III.  c.  XLVIL  p.  471. 

NOTE  36. 

Servus  in  clerum  provehi  sine  voluntate  dominorum,  non  permittimus,  ad 
eorum  qui  possident  molestiam,  domorum  enim  eversionem  talia  efficiunt. 
Siquando  autem,  etiam  dignus  servus  visus  est,  qui  ad  gradum  eligatur, 
qualis  noster  quoque  Onesimus  visus  est,  et  domini  concesserint  ac  libera- 
verint,  et  sedibus  emiserint,  fiat. —  Can.  Apostol.  Can.  LXXXI. 

NOTK  37. 

De  famulistquid  amplius  dicamus,  quam  quod  servus  habeat  benevolentiam 
erga  dominum  cum  timore  Dei,  quamvis  sit  impius,  quamvis  sit  improbus, 
non  tamen  cum  eo  religione  consentiat.  Item  dominus  servum  diligat,  et 
quamvis  prsestet  ei,  judicet  tamen  esse  gequalitatem,  vel  quatenus  homo  esfc. 
Q.ui  autem  habet  dominum  Christianum,  salvo  dominatu,  diligat  eum,  turn  ut 
dominum,  turn  ut  fidei  consortem  et  ut  patrem,  non  sicut  servus  ad  oculum 
serviens,  sed  sicut  dominum  amans,  ut  qui  sciat  mcrcedem  famulatfts  sui  a 
Deo  sibi  solvendam  esse.  Similiter  dominus,  qui  Christianum  famulum 
habet,  salvo  famulatu,  diligat  cum  tanquam  filium,  et  tanquam  fratrem  prop- 
ter  fidei  communionera. —  Constit.  Apostol.  Clem.  Lib.  IV.  ch.  5. 

NOTE  38. 

Si  quis  servum,  prastextu  divini  cultus,  doceat  dominum  contemnere  pro- 
prium,  ut  discedat  ab  ejus  obsequio,  nee  ei  cum  benevolentia  et  omni  honore 
deserviat,  anathema  sit.  —  Concilium  Gangrense,  A.D.  341.  Hardouinl 
Condi.  Tom.  1,  p.  534. 

NOTE  39. 

S^quos  de  servis  ecclesiae  bene  meritos  sibi  episcopus  libertate  donaverit, 
collatam  libertatem  a  successoribus  placuit  custodiri,  cum  hoc  quod  eis  man- 
umissor  in  libertate  contulerit. — Concilium  Agathense,  Can.  VII.  A.D.  500. 
Hardouini  Con.  Tom.  2,  p.  998. 


APPENDIX. 

NOTE  40. 

Servus  qui  ad  ecclesiam  pro  qualibet  culpa  confugerit,  si  a  domino  pro 
admissa  culpa  sacramenta  susciperet,  statim  ad  servitium  domini  sui  redire 
cogatur.  —  Concilium  Aurelianense  1,  Can.  III.  A.D.  511.  Hardouini  Con. 
Tom.  2,  p.  1009. 

v  NOTE  41. 

Si  quis  servum  proprium  sine  conscientia  judicis  occidcrit,  excommunica- 
tionis  biennii  effusionem  sanguinis  expiabit. — Concilium  Epaonense,  Can. 
XXXIV.  A.D.  517.  Hardouini  Con.  Tom.  2,  p.  1051. 

NOTE  42. 

Ut  servis  ecclesiae,  vel  sacerdotum,  praedas  et  captivitates  exercere  non 
liceat :  quia  iniquum  est,  ut  quorum  domini  redemptionis  praestare  solent 
suffragium,  per  servorum  excessum  disciplina  ecclesiastica  maculetur. —  Con 
cilium  Aurdianense  IV.  Can.  XXIII.  A.D.  541.  Hardouini  Con.  Tom.  2, 
p.  1439. 

NOTE  43. 

Ut  servum,  qui  libertatem  a  dominis  propriis  non  acceperit,  aut  etiam 
jam  libertum,  nullus  episcopus  absque  ejus  tantum  voluntate,  cujus  aut 
servus  est,  aut  eum  absolvisse  dignoscitur,  clericum  audeat  ordinare. —  Con 
cilium  Aurelianense  V.  Can.  VI.  A.D.  549.  Hard.  Con.  Tom.  2,  p.  1444-5. 

NOTE  44. 

Idcirco  praasenti  concilio,  Deo  auctore,  sancimus,  ut  nullus  Christianus, 
Judaeo  deniceps  debeat  deservire,  sed  datis  pro  quolibet  bono  manciple  duo- 
decim  solidis,  ipsum  mancipium  quicumque  Christianus,  seu  ad  ingenuitatem, 
seu  ad  servitium,  licentiam  habeat  redimendi ;  quia  nefas  est,  ut  quos 
Christus  Dominus  sanguinis  sui  effusione  redemit,  persecutorum  vinculis 
maneant  irretiti.  Quod  si  acquiescere  his  quas  statuimus,  quicumque 
Judaeus  noluerit,  quamdiu  ad  pecuuiam  constitutam  venire  distulerit,  liceat 
mancipio  ipsi  cum  Christianis,  ubicumque  voluerit,  habitare. —  Concilium 
Matisconense  1,  A.D.  581,  Can.  XVI.  Hardouini  Con.  Tom.  III.'p.  453. 

NOTE  45. 

Quoniam  cognovimus  per  multas  civitates  ecclesiarum  servos,  et  episco- 
porum,  vel  omnium  clericorum  a  judicibus  vel  actoribus  publicis  diversis 
angariis  fatigari,  omne  concilium  a  pietate  domini  nostri  poposcit,  ut  tales 
deinceps  ausus  inhibeat :  sed  servi  suprascriptorum  officiorum,  in  eorum 
usibus  vel  ecclesiae  laborent. —  Con.  Toletanum  III.  Can.  XXL  A.D.  589. 
Hard.  Con.  Tom.  III.  p.  483. 

NOTE  46. 

Ut  omnis  homo,   tarn  ingenuus,  tarn  servus,  Gothus,  Romanus,  Syrus, 


APPENDIX.  367 

Grsecus,  vel  Judaaus,  diei  Dominico  nullam  operam  faciant,  neo  boves 
jungantur ;  excepto  si  in  metando  necessitas  incubuerit.  Quod  si  quisquam 
prsesumpserit  facere,  si  ingenuus  est,  det  comiti  civitatis  solidos  sex ;  si 
sorvus,  centum  flagella  suscipiat. —  Concilium  Narbonense,  A.D,  589.  Can. 
IV.  Hardouini  Con.  Tom.  III.  p.  492. 

NOTE  4Y. 

Si  quis  servum  suum  ad  altere  manumiserit,  liber  esto,  et  habilis  sit  ad 
gaudendum  hereditate  et  wirgildo,  et  fas  sit  ei  ubi  volet  sine  limite  versari. 
—  Con.  Berghamstedense,  Can.  IX.  A.D.  6© 7.  Hard.  Con.  T.  III.  1819. 

NOTE  48. 

Propter  peccatum  priori  hominis,  humano  generi  poena  divinitus  illata  est 
servitutis :  ita  ut  quibus  aspicit  non  congruere  libertatem,  his  misericordius 
irroget  servitutem.  Et  licet  peccatum  humana?  originis,  per  baptism!  gra- 
tiam  cunctis  fidelibus  dimissum  sit,  tamen  asquus  Deus  ideo  discrevit  homini- 
bus  vitam,  alios  servos  constituens,  alios  dominos,  ut  licentia  male  agendi 
servorum,  potestate  dominantium  restringatur.  Non  est  personarum  ac- 
ceptio  apud  Deum. — Unus  enim  Dominus  aequaliter,  et  domiriis  refert  con- 
sultum,  et  servis.  Melior  est  subjecta  servitus,  quam  elata  libertas.  Multi 
enim  inveniuntur  Deo  libere  servientes,  sub  dominis  constituti  flagitiosis : 
quo  etsi  subject!  sunt  illis  corpore,  praelati  tamen  sunt  mente.  —  Coticil. 
Aquisgranense  Can.  CIV.  A.D.  816.  Hard.  Con.  T.  IV.  p.  1115. 

NOTE  49. 

De  servorum  vero  ordinatione,  qui  passim  ad  gradus  ecclesiasticos  indis 
crete  promoventur,  placuit  omnibus  cum  sacris  canonibus  concordari  debere  : 
et  statutum  est,  ut  nullus  episcoporum  deinceps  eos  ad  sacros  ordines  pro- 
movere  prasumat,  nisi  prius  a  dominis  propriis  libertatem  consecuti  fuerint. 
Et  si  quilibet  servus  dominum  suum  fugiens,  aut  latitans,  aut  adhibitis  testi- 
bus  munere  conductis  vel  corruptis,  aut  qualibet  calliditate  vel  fraude  ad 
gradus  ecclesiasticos  pervenerit,  decretum  est  ut  deponatur,  et  dominus  ejus 
recipiat. — Ludovici  Pii  Imperatoris  Capitulare,  anno  imperil  ejus  editum. 
Hard.  Con.  Tom.  IV.  p.  1214. 

NOTE  50. 

Si  quis  servum  proprium  sine  conscientia  judicum,  qui  tale  quid  commis- 
erit,  quod  morte  sit  dignum,  occiderit,  excommunicatione  vel  poenitentia 
biennii  reatum  sanguinis  emundabit.  —  Concilium  Wormatense,  Can. 
XXXVIII.  A.D.  868.  Hard.  Con.  Tom.  V.  p.  743. 

NOTE  51. 

Si  servus,  absente  vel  nesciente  domino  suo,  cpiscopo  autem  sciente  quod 
servus  sit,  diaconus  aut  presbyter  fuerit  ordinatus,  ipse  in  clericatus  officio 


368  APPENDIX. 

permaneat :  episcopus  taraen  eum  domino  duplici  satisfactione  persolvat.  Si 
vero  episcopus  eum  servum  esse  nescieret  et  ita  eum  ad  sacros  ordines  pro- 
movit,  qui  testimonium  de  illo  perhibebant,  aut  eum  postulabant  ordinari, 
simili  recompensatione  teneantur  obnoxii. — Concilium  Wormateme,  Can. 
XL.  A.D.  868.  Hard.  Con.  Tom.  V.  p.  743. 

NOTE  52.  w  1% 

Ne  quis  illud  nefarium  negotium  quo  hactenus  in  Anglia  solebant  homines 
sicut  bruta  animalia  venundari,  deinceps  ullatenus  facere  praesumat. 

NOTE  53. 

"  Anselmus  archiepiscopus  Willelmo  archidiacono  dilecto  suo,  salutem  et 
benedictionem. 

Sententias  capitulorum  concilii  expositas,  nolo  vobis  aut  alicui  ad  praesens 
mittere:  quia  quando  in  ipso  concilio  expositae  sunt,  non  potuerunt  ad 
plenum  et  perfecte  recitari,  propterea  quia  subito  sine  praemeditatione,  ac 
competent!  tractatione,  sicut  oportuerat,  sunt  prolatae.  Unde  quaedam 
videntur  addenda,  et  forsitan  quaedam  mutanda,  quod  non  nisi  communi 
consensu  coepiscoporum  nostrum  volo  facere.  Volo  ergo  eas  dictare,  et 
prius  eisdem  episcopis  ostendere,  cum  primo  convenerimus,  quam  per  eccle- 
sias  Angliae  dictatae  et  expositaa  mittantur.  Nomina  tamen  rerum,  de  quibus 
ibi  locuti  sumus,  vobis  mittimus,  ut  secundum  quod  recordari  poteritis,  nos 
de  illis  decrevisse  faciatis."  Then  follows  a  list  of  subjects,  but  the  topic  of 
selling  slaves  is  entirely  omitted. — Hard.  Condi.  Tom.  VI.  Pars.  2,  p.  1863-6. 

NOTE  54. 

Nous  avons  encore  le  testament  de  S.  Gregoire  de  Nazianze,  en  date  de  der 
nier  jour  de  Decembre  de  cette  annee  381.  II  y  prend  le  titre  d'eveque  de 
C.  P. — II  conserve  a  une  vierge  nommee  Russiene,  la  pension  qu'il  lui  don- 
nait  pour  sa  subsistence,  avec  une  habitation  a  son  choix,  et  lui  donne  deux 
filles  esclaves,  qu'elle  choisira,  pour  demeurer  avec  elle  toute  sa  vie  :  il  lui 
donne  pouvoir  de  les  affranchir,  si  non  elles  appartiendront  a  Teglise  de 
Nazianze.—  Hist.  Ecc.  de  Fkury,  Tome  IV.  p.  419-420.  Ed.  Paris.  1758. 

NOTE  55. 

Saint  Perpetuus  vecut  jusqu'en  491,  et  nous  avons  son  testament  fait  vers 
le  premier  de  Mai,  Tan  475,  par  lequel  11  affranchit  plusieurs  esclaves,  remet 
a  ses  debiteurs  tout  ce  qu'ils  lui  doivent,  et  legue  a  son  eglise  plusieurs 
fonds  de  terre,  et  ses  livres — Hist.  Ecc.  de  Fleury,  Tome  VI.  p.  555.  Ed. 
Paris.  1758. 

NOTE  56. 

Alcuin  avoit  la  disposition  du  revenu  de  ses  abbayes,  et  comme  leurs  terrea 
etoient  peuplees  de  serfs,  Elipand  de  Tolede  lui  reprochoit  d'en  avoir  jus- 
qu'a  vingt  mille. — Hist.  Ecc.  de  Fleury,  Tome  X.  p.  85.  Ed.  Paris.  1758. 


APPENDIX.  3G9 

NOTE  57. 

Dans  le  Concile  de  Soissons,  tenu  A.D.  853.  "Les  eVeques  prioiont  le  roi 
d'appuyer  de  son  autorite,  et  pour  cet  effet  il  publia  dans  la  septieme  ses 
sion  un  capitulaire  de  douze  articles.  .  .  .  Defense  aux  seigneurs  d'empe- 
cher  les  eveques  de  faire  battre  de  verges  les  colons  ou  paysans  serfs  sujeta 
des  memes  seigneurs,  quand  ils  1'auront  merite  pour  leurs  crimes. — Hist. 
Ecc.  de  Fleury,  Tome  X.  p.  471.  Ed.  Paris.  1758. 

NOTE  58. 

Apres  cette  preface,  est  le  decret  du  pape  (Benoit  VIII.  A.D.  1022,)  divise" 
en  sept  articles.  II  renouvelle  la  defense  d'avoir  ni  femme  ni  concubine,  et 
semble  1'etendre  a  tous  les  clercs  sans  exception.  II  declare  que  les  enfans 
des  clercs  sont  serfs  de  1'eglise  en  laquelle  servent  leurs  peres,  quoique  leurs 
meres  soient  libres,  et  prononce  anatlieme  contre  le  juge  qui  les  declarera 
libres.  Aucun  serf  de  1'eglise,  clerc  ou  laique,  ne  pourra  faire  aucune  ac 
quisition  sous  le  nom  d'un  homme  libre,  sous  peiue  de  fouet  et  de  prison, 
jusq'u'a  ce  que  1'eglise  ait  retire  tous  les  titres  de  1'acquisition. — Hist.  Ecc. 
de  Fleury,  Tome  XII.  p.  405.  Ed.  Paris.  1758. 

NOTE  59. 

In  sexto  capite  initio  servis  prseceptum  dat,  ubi  meminerint  juniores  com- 
munem  regulam  corifirmari,  quae  soepe  repetitur,  Evangelium  non  abolet 
oeconomias  et  politias,  sed  concionatur  de  aliis  rebus,  videlicet  de  aeternis 
bonis,  de  ooterna  justicia  et  vita,  quam  Deus  efficit  in  cordibus  hominum, 
quos  tamen,  vult  in  hac  vita  mortal!  subjectos  esse  huic  ordini,  qui  juxta 
voluntatem  Dei  convenit  vitas  corporali.  Vult  nos  cibo  et  potu  sustentari, 
vult  esse  legitima  conjugia,  et  propagatiouem.  Vult  esse  consociationem 
ordinariam  generis  humani,  distinctionem  dominiorum,  defensionem  per 
imperia,  contractus,  leges,  judicia,  poenas.  Ita  hue  videmus  approbari  servi- 
tutem,  qualis  tune  in  legibus  descripta  fuit.  Prodest  autem  et  conscientiis  et 
ad  pacem  intelligere  hanc  doctrinam  de  approbatione  ordinis  politici. — Philip^ 
MelanlUonis,  Com.  in  1  Ep.  ad  Tim.  6:1.  Ed.  1564.  Pars  IV.  p.  422. 

NOTE  60. 

Quincunque  sub  jugoJ]  Quia  sibi  quisque  proestantiam  falsa  opiniono  arro- 
gat,  nemo  est  qui  a?quo  animo  ferat,  alios  sibi  imperare.  Qui  effugere  neces- 
sitatem  nequeunt,  parent  illi  quidem  inviti  superioribus  :  sed  intus  fremunt 
et  indignantur,  quia  sibi  putant  fieri  injuriam.  Omnes  ejusmodi  disputationes 
Uno  verbo  prascidit  Apostolus,  quum  voluntariam  subjectionem  exigit  ab 
omnibus  qui  sub  jugo  sunt.  Significat  enim  non  esse  inquirendum  sintne 
digni  tali  fortuna  an  meliore  :  quia  sufficiat  Lac  conditione  esse  obstrictos. — • 
Calvin's  Com.  on  1  Tim.  6:1. 
16* 


370  APPENDIX. 

NOTE  61. 

Ne  Dei  nomcn.']  Semper  in  nostrum  commodum  plusquam  oporteret  inge- 
niosi  sumus.  Ita  servis  si  infideles  habeant  dominos,  prompta  est  objectio, 
indignum  esse  ut,  qui  diabolo  serviunt,  imperent  filiis  Dei.  Paulus  autem 
in  contrariam  partem  retorquet  argumentum,  ideo  infidelibus  dominis  paren- 
dum  esse,  ne  male  audiat  nomen  Dei  et  Evangelium,  quasi  Evangelium  con- 
tumaces  reddat  et  praefractos,  qui  aliis  subjecti  esse  debent. — Ib. 

NOTE  62. 

Quanta  fuerit  spiritus  Paulini  celsitudo,  etsi  ex  gravioribus  ejus  scriptis 
perspici  melius  potest,  haec  quoque  Epistola  testis  est,  in  qua  argumentum 
tractans  humile  alias  et  abjectum,  suo  tamen  more  sublimis  ad  Deum  evehitur. 
Fugitivum  servum  et  furem  Domino  remittens,  pro  illo  deprecatur  veniam. 
— Calvin'' s  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  introductory  paragraph. 

NOTE  63. 

Prolegomena.]  Hasc  epistola  novo  genere  a  Paulo  scripta  est,  et  sola  verd 
proprieque  epistola  dici  meretur.  Ejus  utilitas  multiplex.  Atonet  enim 
nos.  1,  neminem,  quamvis  imfimae  sortis,  contemnendum :  2,  de  servorum 
ingenio  non  esse  dcsperandum :  3,  Servos  credentes  in  Christum  non  prop- 
terea  liber  os  fieri,  vel  invitis  eripi  dominis:  4,  quodnam  sit  Episcopi  officium, 
turn  ergo  inferiores,  turn  ergo  nobiliores — Scribendi  causa  erat,  ut  servum 
hero  reconciliaret.  Quod  cum  ei  difficile  videretur  apud  dominum  justissirnis 
de  causis  iratum,  cum  et  servus,  rebus  uti  creditur,  ablatis,  profugisset  omni 
orationis  artificio  eum  aggreditur.  Si  quid  in  genere  suasorio  admirandum 
est,  certe  hoc  epistolicum  est. — Poli  Synopsis  Criticorum,  in  Epist.  Pauli 
ad  Philemonem. 

NOTE  64. 

ServiJ]  Non  tollit  morem  tune  reccptum  servis  utendi :  habet  enim  sua 
commoda,  et  licet  eo  recte  uti.  Docet  libertatem  Christianam  consistere  cum 
scrviiute  politica,  et  per  Christum  non  tolli,  nee  mutari,  statics  politicos. — Poli 
Synopsis,  in  Epist.  ad  EpJiesios  6  :  5. 

NOTE  65. 

1  Ep.  ad  Corinthos  7  :  21.  Scd  si  potes  liber  fieri,  potiiis  utere.]  1.  Servi- 
tute  utere  :  magis  servias,  majoris  boni  causa,  scil,  ad  tuam  exercitionem,  et 
domini  tui  salutem.  Syrus  locum  sic  reddit.  Sed  etiamsi  posses  liber  fieri, 
(tuis  nempe  artibus  et  fraudibus)  elige  tibi  ut  servias. — Huic  sensui  optime 
quadrat  sequens  ratio  consolatoria.  Nam  qui  servus  vocatus  est,  llbertus  est 
Domini.  Non  tamen  hoc  voluit,  ut  servitutem  praeferrent  libertati  ab  heris 
sponte  oblatce,  sed  libertati  illegitimse  per  fugam,  aut  fraudem,  etc. — Poli 
Synopsis,  in  1  Epist.  ad  Corinthos,  7. 


APPENDIX.  371 

NOTE  66. 

Gen  9  :  25.  Maledictus  Canaan.]  Quidam  subaudiunt  ^2N5  pater.  Pater 
Canaan.  Ita  Ar. — quod  paulo  ante  bis  expressum  est.  Alii  acciphmt  de 
Canaan.  Hunc  populum  maledictum  fuisse  eventua  docuit.  Hinc  proba- 
biliter  colligitur  eum  fuisse  paternae  iniquitatis  socium.  Nee  tamen  Cham 
immunis  est  a  maledictione,  quia  filius  ejus  nominatur  ;  sicut  Semo  bene- 
dicitur,  vers.  sequente  quamvis  Deus  nominetur,  et  Jacob  dicitur  benedicere 
Josepho,  Gen.  48  :  15,  quia  liberis  ipsius  benedixit,  v.  16.  Punitur  parens 
in  filio,  sceleris  conscio,  forsan  et  auctore  et  indice,  ut  volunt  Hebraei  et 
Theodoretus.  Quidam  observant  malediceisse  Noe  posteritati  Cham,  sed 
omissis  reliquis  filiis  Cham,  singulariter  de  Canaan  expressisse  Mosen,  quia 
tantum  ea  commemorusse  voluit  quae  Israelitas  confirmare  et  alacriores  red- 
dere  possent  ad  capessendara  terram  promissam  Canaan. — Poll  Synopsis, 
in  loco. 

NOTE  67. 

Servus  Servorum,'}  i.  e.  Servus  infimus  et  vilissimus. — Ib. 
NOTE  68. 

Gen.  17  :  12.  Tarn  vernaculus  quam  emptitius.']  Incircumcisus  in  terra 
Hebraeorum  vivere  poterat  sub  bonis  legibus,  non  item  in  domo  Hebraei, 
ne  mores  exemplo  confunderentur.  Qu.  An  servi  emptitii  ad  circumcisionem 
cogi  poterant  ?  Affirmant  multi  ex  hoc  loco.  Nam.  1.  Servus  est  possessio 
domini.  2.  Illud,  drcumcidetur,  praeceptum  est,  quod  elides,  si  subaudias 
si  velit.  3.  Alias  nulla  distinctio  esset  inter  mercenarium  et  servum  nam 
mercenariis  permissa  erat  (non  praecepta)  circumciSio,  Exod.  12  :  44.  Negant 
alii.  Existimant  nullum  adultum  servum  obligari  ad  circumcisionem  suae 
aut  prolis,  nisi  sponte  consentiat.  Nam  sic  sumenti  (circumcisionem)  im- 
poneretur  peccandi  necessitas,  et  juberetur  hypocrisis.  Nee  talis  circumcisio 
sacramentum  esset  Dei  foederis,  quod  non  nisi  volentes  amplectimur.  Deni- 
que,  vera  religio  suaderi  debet,  non  imperari.  Adde  quod  Maimonides  sic 
explicat,  de  Circumcisione,  cap.  1,  sect.  6.  Si  quis  (inquit)  servum  jam 
adultum  a  Cuthcels  comparavit,  qui  clrcumcidi  nolit — debet  Cuthseis  iterum 
venundari. — Poll  Syn. 

NOTE  69.        .    . 

Exodus  20  :  10.  Servus  tuus.~\  Nee  labores  illis  injungas,  nee  eos  laborare 
patiaris.  Intelligitur  hoc  de  iis  qui  non  erant  Judaei,  nam  qui  Judaei  per  pre- 
cedentia  erant  prohibiti. — Poll  Syn.  in  loco. 

NOTE  70. 

Ib.  17.  Non  concupisses,  etc.]  His  legis  verbis  maxime  stabilitur  dominium 
et  proprietas  rerum  quas  ne  concupiscere  licet,  servitus  praetera  et  Jtcrilis 
potestas. — Poli  Syn.  in  loco. 


372  APPENDIX. 

NOTE  71. 

Deuter.  23  :  15.  Non  trades  servum,  etc.]  Agit  de  domino  extraneo.  Sic 
terra  Israelitica  asylum  fit.  Intellige  de  servis  qui  ab  Ethnicis  dominis,  prop 
ter  tyrannidem,  confugiebant  ad  Israelitas,  Judaism!  amplectendi  gratia. — 
Poll  Synopsis  in  loco. 

NOTE  72. 

Exod.  21:  16.  Que  furatus  fucit  hominem  hominem  et  vendiderit.~\  Nempo 
Israelitam.  Patet  ex  Deut.  24  :  7.  Quern  Judaeus  aliquis  vi  vel  fraude  per- 
traliere  posset  in  servitutem,  et  Gentilibus  devendere. — Poll  Syn.  in  loco. 

NOTE  73. 

Esdras  2c?,  c.  65.  Servi — septem  millia,  etc.]  Vide  teYmem  captivorum 
fortunam,  cum  tot  millia  non  haberent  plures  servos. — Poll  Syn.  in  loco. 

NOTE  74. 

Qui  post  sanctum  baptismum,  duobus  conjugiis  fucrit  implicitus,  vel 
habuerit  concubinam,  non  potest  esse  episcopus,  vel  presbyter,  vel  diaconus, 
vel  omnino  ex  numero  sacerdotali.  —  Canones  Apostolorum,  Hardonini 
Condi.  Tom.  1,  p.  14. 

NOTE  75. 

Nemo  debet  duas  uxores  simul  ducere,  nee  uxori  suae  alteram  mulierem 
propter  voluptatem  et  desideriurn  carnis  subintroducere,  projiciendo  se  in 
periculum  peccandi,  versando  cum  pluribus  ad  concupiscentiam,  nee  ad 
semen  suscipiendum,  sicut  Deus  ordinavit :  et  qui  hoc  fecerit,  si  fuerit 
sacerdos,  prohibeatur  uiinisterio  sacrificandi,  et  communione  fidelium, 
quousque  ejiciat  domo  secundam :  et  debet  retinere  primam.  Idem  judicium 
est  de  laicis. — Canon  XXIV.  Concilii  Nicceni  Versio  Arabica.  Hardouini 
Con.  Tom.  1,  p.  467,  A. 

NOTE  76. 
Polygamy. 

Possit  enim  homo  demittere  sterilem  uxorem,  et  ducere  de  qua  filios 
habeat;  et  timen  non  licet,  et  nostris  quidem  jam  temporibus  ac  more 
Romano,  nee  superinducere,  ut  amplius  habeat  quam  unam  vivam. — Au- 
ffustin.  Op.  Tom.  VI.  De  Bono  Conjugali,  p.  237,  B. 

NOTE  77. 

De  trigamis  et  polygamis  definiere  eumdem  Canonem,  quern  et  de  digamis, 
servata  proportione,  annum  videlicet  in  digamis,  alii  vero  duos  annos.  Tri- 
gamos  autem  tribus  et  saepe  quatuor  annis  segregant. — Basil.  Eplstola  188, 
Canonica  1,  Tom.  III.  p.  271,  D. 


APPENDIX.  873 

NOTE  78. 

Polygamlam  Patres  silentio  praetermisere,  ut  bclluinam,  prorsusque  ab  horn- 
in  um  genere  alienam. — Basil.  Epist.  217,  Ganonica  3,  Tom.  III.  p.  329,  C. 

NOTE  79. 

From  the  volume  of  Captain  Canot,  published  by  Appleton  &  Co.,  1854, 
I  make  the  following  extract,  which  gives  a  more  graphic  statement  of  tlie 
atrocities  committed  by  the  native  Africans  than  many  books  of  much 
greater  pretension.  See  chapter  LXI.  p.  382-6. 

"  During  my  first  visit  to  Digby,"  saith  our  author,  "  I  promised  my 
trading  friends — that  I  would  either  return  to  their  settlement,  or  at  least 
send  merchandise  and  a  clerk  to  establish  a  factory." 

"  There  were  two  towns  at  Digby,  governed  £y  cousins,  who  had  always 
lived  in  harmony.  My  mercantile  venture,  however,  was  unhappily  des 
tined  to  be  the  apple  of  discord  between  them.  The  establishment  of  so 
important  an  institution  as  a  slave-factory  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
younger  savage,  gave  umbrage  to  the  elder ;  and  in  a  very  short  time,  this 
unlucky  partiality  ripened  the  noble  kinsmen  into  bitter  enemies." 

"  It  is  not  the  habit  in  Africa  for  negroes  to  expend  their  wrath  in  harm 
less  words,  so  that  preparations  were  soon  made  in  each  settlement  for 
defence  as  well  as  hostility.  Both  towns  were  stockaded  and  carefully 
watched  by  sentinels,  day  and  night.  At  times,  forays  were  made  into  each 
other's  suburbs,  but  as  the  chiefs  were  equally  vigilant  and  alert,  the  ex 
tent  of  harm  was  the  occasional  capture  of  women  and  children,  as  they 
wandered  to  the  forest  and  stream  for  wood  and  water." 

"  This  dalliance,  however,  did  not  suit  the  ardor  of.  my  angry  favorite. 
After  waiting  a  couple  of  mouths,  he  purchased  the  aid  of  certain  bushmen, 
headed  by  a  notorious  scoundrel  named  Jen-ken,  who  had  acquired  renown 
for  his  barbarous  ferocity  throughout  the  neighborhood.  Jen-ken  and  hia 
chiefs  were  cannibals,  and  never  trod  the  war-path  without  a  pledge  to  re 
turn  laden  with  human  flesh  to  gorge  their  households." 

"Several  assaults  were  made  by  this  savage  and  his  bushmen  on  the  dis 
satisfied  cousin,  but  as  they  produced  no  significant  results,  the  barbarians 
withdrew  to  the  interior.  A  truce  ensued.  Friendly  proposals  were  made 
by  the  younger  to  the  elder,  and  again  a  couple  of  months  glided  by  in 
seeming  peace." 

"Just  at  this  time  business  called  me  to  Gallinas.  On  my  way  hither  I 
looked  in  at  Digby,  intending  to  supply  the  displeased  chieftain  with  goods 
and  an  agent,  if  I  found  the  establishment  profitable." 

"  It  was  sunset  when  I  reached  the  beach ;  too  late,  of  course,  to  land  my 
merchandise,  so  that  I  postponed  furnishing  both  places  until  the  morning. 


374  APPENDIX. 

As  might  fairly  be  expected,  there  was  abundant  joy  at  my  advent.  The 
neglected  rival  was  wild  with  satisfaction  at  the  report  that  he,  too,  was  at 
length  favored  with  a  '  white%  man.'  His  'town'  immediately  became 
a  scene  of  unbounded  merriment.  Powder  was  burnt  without  stint. 
Gallons  of  rum  were  distributed  to  both  sexes ;  and  dancing,  smoking,  and 
carousing  continued  till  long  after  midnight,  when  all  stole  off  to  maudlin 
sleep." 

"  About  three  in  the  morning,  the  sudden  screams  of  women  and  child 
ren  aroused  me  from  profound  torpor  !  Shrieks  were  followed  by  vol 
leys  of  musketry.  There  was  a  loud  tattoo  of  knocks  at  my  door,  and 
appeals  from  the  negro  chief  to  rise  and  fly.  '  The  town  was  besieged — 
the  head-men  were  on  the  point  of  escaping — resistance  was  vain — they 
had  been  betrayed — there  were  no  fighters  to  defend  the  stockade.' " 

"  I  was  opening  the  door  to  comply  with  this  advice,  when  my  Kroomen, 
who  knew  the  country's  ways  even  better  than  I,  dissuaded  me  from  de 
parting,  with  the  confident  assurance  that  our  assailants  were  unquestionably 
composed  of  the  rival  townsfolk,  who  had  only  temporarily  discharged  the 
bushmen  to  deceive  my  entertainer.  The  Kroos  insisted  that  I  had  nothing 
to  fear.  We  might,  they  said,  be  seized  and  even  imprisoned  ;  but  after 
a  brief  detention,  the  captors  would  be  glad  enough  to  accept  our  ran 
som.  If  we  fled,  we  might  be  slaughtered  by  mistake." 

"  I  had  so  much  confidence  in  the  sense  and  fidelity  of  the  band  that  al 
ways  accompanied  me — partly  as  boatmen  and  partly  as  body-guard — that  I 
experienced  very  little  personal  alarm  when  I  heard  the  shouts  as  the 
savages  rushed  through  the  town,  murdering  every  one  they  encountered. 
In  a  few  moments  our  own  door  was  battered  down  by  the  barbarians, 
and  Jen-ken,  torch  in  hand,  made  his  appearance,  claiming  us  as  prison 
ers." 

"  Of  course,  we  submitted  without  resistance,  for  although  fully  armed, 
the  odds  were  so  great  in  those  ante-revolver  days,  that  we  should  havo 
been  overwhelmed  by  a  single  wave  of  the  infuriated  crowd.  The  barbarian 
chief  instantly  selected  our  house  for  his  headquarters,  and  dispatched  his 
followers  to  complete  their  task.  Prisoner  after  prisoner  was  thrust  in. 
At  times  the  heavy  mash  of  a  war-club  and  the  cries  of  strangling  women, 
gave  notice  that  the  work  of  death  was  not  yet  ended.  But  the  night  of 
horror  wore  away.  The  gray  dawn  crept  through  our  hovel's  bars,  and  all 
was  still,  save  the  groans  of  wounded  captives,  and  the  wailing  of  women 
and  children." 

"  By  degrees,  the  warriors  dropped  in  around  their  chieftain.  A.  palaver* 
house,  immediately  in  front  of  my  quarters,  was  the  general  rendezvous ; 
and  scarcely  a  busknian  appeared  without  the  body  of  some  maimed  and 


APPENDIX.  375 

bleeding  victim.  The  mangled  but  living  captives  were  tumbled  on  a  heap 
in  the  centre,  and  soon  every  avenue  to  the  square  was  crowded  with  ex 
ulting  savages.  Rum  was  brought  forth  in  abundance  for  the  chiefs.  Pre 
sently,  slowly  approaching  from  a  distance,  I  heard  the  drums,  horns,  and 
war-bells  ;  and  in  less  than  fifteen  .minutes,  a  procession  of  women,  whose 
naked  limbs  were  smeared  with  chalk  and  ochre,  poured  into  the  palaver- 
house  to  join  the  beastly  rites.  Each  of  these  devils  was  armed  with  a 
knife,  and  bore  in  her  hand  some  cannibal  trophy.  Jen-ken's  wife,  a  cor 
pulent  wench  of  forty-five,  dragged  along  the  ground,  by  a  single  limb, 
the  slimy  corpse  of  an  infant  ripped  alive  from  its  mother's  womb.  As 
her  eyes  met  those  of  her  husband,  the  two  fiends  yelled  forth  a  shout 
of  mutual  joy,  while  the  lifeless  babe  was  tossed  in  the  air  and  caught,  as  it 
descended,  upon  the  point  of  a  spear.  Then  came  the  refreshment,  in  the 
shape  of  rum,  powder,  and  blood,  which  was  quaffed  by  the  brutes  till 
they  reeled  off,  with  linked  hands,  in  a  wild  dance  around  the  pile  of 
victims.  As  the  women  leaped  and  sang,  the  men  applauded  and  encour^ 
aged.  Soon  the  ring  was  broken,  and  with  a  yell,  each  female  leaped  on 
the  body  of  a  wounded  prisoner,  and  commenced  the  final  sacrifice  with  the 
mockery  of  lascivious  embraces  !" 

"  In  my  wanderings  in  African  forests,  I  have  often  seen  the  tiger  pounce 
upon  its  prey,  and  with  instinctive  thirst,  satiate  its  appetite  for  blood,  and 
abandon  the  drained  corpse  ;  but  these  African  negresses  were  neither  as 
decent  nor  as  merciful  as  the  beast  of  the  wilderness.  Their  malignant 
pleasure  seemed  to  consist  in  the  invention  of  tortures  that  would  agonize, 
but  not  slay.  There  was  a  devilish  spell  in  the  tragic  scene  that  fascinated 
my  eyes  to  the  spot.  A  slow,  lingering,  tormenting  mutilation  was  prac 
tised  on  the  living  as  well  as  on  the  dead ;  and,  in  every  instance,  the 
brutality  of  the  women  exceeded  that  of  the  men.  I  can  not  picture  the 
hellish  joy  with  which  they  passed  from  body  to  body,  digging  out  eyes, 
wrenching  off  lips,  tearing  the  ears,  and  slicing  the  flesh  from  the  quiver 
ing  bones ;  while  the  queen  of  the  harpies  crept  amid  the  butchery,  gath 
ering  the  brains  from  each  several  skull  as  a  bonne  bouche  for  the  approaching 
feast !" 

"  After  the  last  victim  yielded  his  life,  it  did  not  require  long  to  kindle  a 
fire,  produce  the  requisite  utensils,  and  fill  the  air  with  the  odor  of  human 
flesh.  Yet,  before  the  various  masses  were  half  broiled,  every  mouth  was 
tearing  the  dainty  morsels  with  shouts  of  joy,  denoting  the  combined  satis 
faction  of  revenge  and  appetite !  In  the  midst  of  this  appalling  scene,  I 
heard  a  fresh  cry  of  exultation,  as  a  pole  was  borne  into  the  apartment,  on 
which  was  impaled  the  living  body  of  the  conquered  chieftain's  wife.'  A 
hole  was  quickly  dug,  the  stave  planted,  and  fagots  supplied  ;  but  before 


376  APPENDIX. 

a  fire  could  be  kindled,  the  wretched  woman  was  dead,  so  that  the  bar 
barians  were  defeated  in  their  hellish  scheme  of  burning  her  alive." 

"  I  do  not  know  how  long  these  brutalities  lasted,  for  I  remember  very 
little  after  this  last  attempt,  except  that  the  bushmen  packed  in  plaintain 
leaves  whatever  flesh  was  left  from  the  orgie,  to  be  conveyed  to  their 
friends  in  the  forest.  This  was  the  first  time  it  had  been  my  lot  to  behold 
the  most  savage  development  of  African  nature  under  the  stimulus  of  war. 
The  butchery  made  me  sick,  dizzy,  paralyzed.  I  sank  on  the  earth  be 
numbed  with  stupor  ;  nor  was  I  aroused  till  nightfall,  when  my  Kroomen 
bore  me  to  the  conqueror's  town,  and  negotiated  our  redemption  for  the 
value  of  twenty  slaves." 

I  had  prepared  a  large  number  of  other  extracts  from  the  works  of  the 
missionary,  Rev.  Mr.  Moffat,  of  Dr.  Livingstone,  and  especially  of  Captain 
Burton,  whose  book,  entitled,  The  Lake  Regions  of  Central  Africa,  presents, 
in  the  last  chapter,  the  fullest  and  most  satisfactory  account  of  African  char 
acter  and  habits  that  I  have  seen.  But  I  have  already  exceeded  the  limits 
allotted  to  this  volume,  and  shall  only  say,  in  conclusion,  that  I  am  not  able 
to  conceive  how  any  Christian  can  seriously  reflect  on  the  awful  depravity, 
the  dark  heathenism,  the  gross  licentiousness,  the  cruel  ferocity,  and  the 
worse  than  brutish  degradation  of  the  posterity  of  Ham,  in  their  native  coun 
try,  and  yet  denourice,  as  a  sin,  the  Southern  institution,  which  has  been  the 
only  means  to  raise  millions  out  of  that  terrible  abyss,  and  endow  them  with 
the  knowledge  of  civilization,  and  of  morality,  founded  on  true  religion. 
For  my  own  part,  as  a  friend  to  the  negro  race,  and  to  the  best  interests  of 
Africa,  I  can  not  hesitate  to  regard  it  as  a  dispensation  of  Providence ;  through 
which  the  noble  enterprise  of  the  American  Colonization  Society,  commenc 
ing  with  Liberia,  will  furnish,  in  due  time,  the  best  and  most  available  instru 
mentality  for  the  ultimate  regeneration  of.  that  benighted  continent.  In  the 
accomplishment  of  this  grand  design,  the  descendants  of  Canaan  will  have 
the  largest  scope  for  the  development  of  all  their  faculties  and  powers.  And 
looking  forward  to  the  result,  which,  sooner  or  later,  will  be  effected,  I 
consider  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  be,  not  a  "covenant  with 
death,  and  an  agreement  with  hell,"  but  rather  a  covenant  with  life,  and  an 
agreement  with  the  final  purpose  of  divine  mercy,  for  countless  generationa 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


HQV9.-19R6   3 


RECEIVED 


& 


AN    PERT. 


mm 


DEC  2  2  1991 


'AN  0  2  2003 


LD  21A-60m-7,'66 
(G4427slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


«*•»•.• 


0336512021 


WM 


*tfi 

mm!® 


*  VJ  V1**'  *c*  V  V  *a*  K   *--'vS/  S"'  *s*.V  V  V  V  -**»J 

-  06  0  0  0  0  O  000  O.CO.O^3^ 

o  t>o  p  o  o  o  o  &ty§^§&8$$ 

>00000000000000000u,^  „..  , 

o  o  c>  c- o  o  o  o  o  o  o  <vo  DO  o  o <8SS8£n 
>  o o oo  o  ao  c?  o  P&MP  ooo  o  tjo  o  o\- 

OC>00060b00600<JOOOOX?03500j 

kw>o  oWo  o  wo  c^so  o  otf  o  o  6  o0 


fto^ 


^4^40* 


&$&& 


roooT? 
d<»S 

>^MJ 


